Collusion with Russia

[iNow]

https://abcnews.go.com/beta-story-container/Politics/roger-stone-longtime-trump-friend-indicted-special-counsel/story?id=59520432

Quote

President Donald Trump's longtime friend and veteran political operative Roger Stone has been indicted on seven counts, including one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements and one count of witness tampering in special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election.

<...>

Over the course of his nearly two-year-long probe, Mueller and his team of prosecutors have now indicted 33 individuals and three Russian businesses on charges ranging from computer hacking to conspiracy and financial crimes.

Those indictments have led to seven guilty pleas and three people sentenced to prison. Four former Trump campaign officials -- including his onetime national security adviser Michael Flynn and campaign chairman Paul Manafort, also a former associate of Stone – are among those who have pleaded guilty.

Is anyone (other than obvious apologists and propagandists) really surprised?

[rangerx]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

https://abcnews.go.com/beta-story-container/Politics/roger-stone-longtime-trump-friend-indicted-special-counsel/story?id=59520432

Is anyone (other than obvious apologists and propagandists) really surprised?

No surprise here. Stone is alleged to have lied about inquiring for access to hacked/stolen DNC emails, presumably from WikiLeaks at the behest of the Trump campaign.

Meanwhile, the president's press secretary, who was also on the campaign, basically said, "so what? CNN did it". Did she actually say.. Did it too? Was that an admission?

That begs the question what does she know? Is her denial of the "White House" having knowledge a deflection from the "campaign" having knowledge? Why hasn't she been questioned by Mueller?

Here's the thing though. Republicans have no problem with guilt by association and the perceptual maybes they rant. Take Rev. Jeremiah Wright for example, who some times espoused anti American sentiments. For weeks on end, the right barbecued Obama for attending his services or "paling around with terrorists undermining national security". Did any of that even remotely rise to the level of this?

Then of course there's the Hillary email thing and her so-called threat to national security for three classified notes on a private server that may have undermined national security. Meanwhile Trump's campaign, requested emails stolen from the DNC by Russians and provided electoral polling data in a quid pro quo and lied about it to the special council. Again why was a perceived threat horrifying while actually colluding is not?

Now apparently the Trump campaign has nothing to do with Trump is the narrative.

Whatever happened to "I hire all the best people"? Whatever happened to accountability for one's people? Whatever happened fair elections? I have little doubt Trump is criminal in this, but for now, I'll will go along on the premise and the only remaining defense left in the Trump play book, he's been played. A fool.

Putin's "useful idiot" The President of the United States of America.

Nice job Republicans. Very well done, telling the world just exactly who you are.

Edited January 25, 2019 by rangerx

[Ten oz]

57 minutes ago, rangerx said:

No surprise here. Stone is alleged to have lied about inquiring for access to hacked/stolen DNC emails, presumably from WikiLeaks at the behest of the Trump campaign.

Meanwhile, the president's press secretary, who was also on the campaign, basically said, "so what? CNN did it". Did she actually say.. Did it too? Was that an admission?

That begs the question what does she know? Is her denial of the "White House" having knowledge a deflection from the "campaign" having knowledge? Why hasn't she been questioned by Mueller?

Here's the thing though. Republicans have no problem with guilt by association and the perceptual maybes they rant. Take Rev. Jeremiah Wright for example, who some times espoused anti American sentiments. For weeks on end, the right barbecued Obama for attending his services or "paling around with terrorists undermining national security". Did any of that even remotely rise to the level of this?

Then of course there's the Hillary email thing and her so-called threat to national security for three classified notes on a private server that may have undermined national security. Meanwhile Trump's campaign, requested emails stolen from the DNC by Russians and provided electoral polling data in a quid pro quo and lied about it to the special council. Again why was a perceived threat horrifying while actually colluding is not?

I think part of the problem here, the reason why the Russia investigation isn't causing more public out cry, is everyone is guilty to various degrees. The left has blood on its hands too. While Trump may have sought and accepted help from Russia Bernie Sanders campaign accepted Russia's help as well. The difference between seeking and receiving vs just receiving is fairly opaque. Bernie Sanders used material he knew was illegally obtained and released by Russia to launch complaints against the DNC primary process. Bernie Sander positioned himself as a victim and used the DNC hacks to de-legitimize the primary process. 

Then there is the media. Just look at all the clicks, views, ratings, and etc did news outlets receive releasing the hacks. Pundits read page after page of the hacks to their audiences. Bill Maher and Sean Hannity both had Julian Assange on their shows. Buzzfeed was one of the first outlets to release the hacked material. 

In my opinion it worse to seek Russian help than only accept it but in this case maybe only a little bit worse. The media and Bernie Sanders did know Russia was behind the hacks and still feasted. Here is a Wired article detailing that Russia was responsible for the Russia from July of 2016, Link. Bill Maher had Julian Assange on his show in August. No one can claim ignorance here. Everyone knowing propagated information illegal obtained by Russia. Nearly everyone still is. 

1 hour ago, rangerx said:

Now apparently the Trump campaign has nothing to do with Trump is the narrative.

Trump is trying to position himself as someone who only accepted the help; just like everyone else. 

1 hour ago, rangerx said:

Whatever happened to "I hire all the best people"? Whatever happened to accountability for one's people? Whatever happened fair elections? I have little doubt Trump is criminal in this, but for now, I'll will go along on the premise and the only remaining defense left in the Trump play book, he's been played. A fool.

It is hard for the right to get worked up over these questions when people on the left (Bernie Sanders) are using the same Russian hack info to say the DNC rigs nominations, elections aren't fair, and there is no accountability. 

1 hour ago, rangerx said:

Putin's "useful idiot" The President of the United States of America.

Nice job Republicans. Very well done, telling the world just exactly who you are.

Trump is obviously rewarding Putin for his support. It is clearly a threat to the national security of the Nation. I don't think anything can be done about it until everyone does some serious soul searching. Drinking a single lone beer every night doesn't make one an alcoholic but someone who is drinking a beer every single night isn't in the best position to criticize an alcoholic. 

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

I think part of the problem here, the reason why the Russia investigation isn't causing more public out cry, is everyone is guilty to various degrees. The left has blood on its hands too. While Trump may have sought and accepted help from Russia Bernie Sanders campaign accepted Russia's help as well. The difference between seeking and receiving vs just receiving is fairly opaque. Bernie Sanders used material he knew was illegally obtained and released by Russia to launch complaints against the DNC primary process. Bernie Sander positioned himself as a victim and used the DNC hacks to de-legitimize the primary process. 

Sanders isn't the president, and did not run for president in the general election.

It's possible a lot of this is moot as a result. I'd be interested to learn to what extent federal election law applies to primaries.

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

Sanders isn't the president, and did not run for president in the general election.

It's possible a lot of this is moot as a result. I'd be interested to learn to what extent federal election law applies to primaries.

I don't believe Bernie Sanders broke the law. I am purely referencing public perception. There isn't a lot of moral authority on this issue. 

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I don't believe Bernie Sanders broke the law. I am purely referencing public perception. There isn't a lot of moral authority on this issue. 

I doubt Mr. Meuller is interested in Bernie either.

I'm certain he's going to have something to say about the Steele dossier, though.

Maybe the linchpin, maybe a linchpin, but not a nothing burger, as some would put it.

[swansont]

16 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I don't believe Bernie Sanders broke the law. I am purely referencing public perception. There isn't a lot of moral authority on this issue. 

You mentioned the Russia investigation, and there wouldn’t be one for Bernie if there wasn’t a possibility that he broke the law. So I don’t see how the left “has blood on its hands” since the democrats rejected Bernie, and Bernie is not a democrat. It’s not “the left”, it’s the hard-core Sanders supporters, at best, which is a much smaller group.

[Ten oz]

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

You mentioned the Russia investigation, and there wouldn’t be one for Bernie if there wasn’t a possibility that he broke the law. So I don’t see how the left “has blood on its hands” since the democrats rejected Bernie, and Bernie is not a democrat. It’s not “the left”, it’s the hard-core Sanders supporters, at best, which is a much smaller group.

I posted "the reason why the Russia investigation isn't causing more public out cry, ". I meant to address the reason I thought the Russian investigation hasn't led to a more powerful reaction from the Public. I didn't mean to make a general argument about the legalities of the Mueller investigation. I am sorry big that wasn't clear. 

Trump's approval rating, while low, doesn't move much. It is remarkably steady even as more and more of his  inner circle get charged with treasonous crimes. I think it is crazy that he already isn't impeached considering all that is  known. Impeachment won't be possible till his disapproval numbers are higher. 

The blood on the hands comment referenced the fact that Democrats too used the hacked material to their own ends. As mentioned left leaning political vioce Bill Maher still had Julian Assange on his show even after it was known he'd been helping Russia. Bernie Sanders made arguments which used the DNC hacked material to attack the primary process. Many of Bernie Sanders supporters inaccurately claimed the DNC and Clinton had illegally rigged the Primary. They treated the hacks as akin to a whistle blower rather than an attack against our election by a forgien adversary. 

I think the impact of that is people are indifferent to it all now. Movies have been made about Julian Assange. He is considered by many to be some sort of new era freedom of information warrior. People view hacked material as fair game. Of course there is a huge difference between conspiring with Russia to get and release hacked material and simply talking about that material at a rally. Or course Bernie Sanders did not commit a crime. Of course people like Bill Maher and Michael Moore can feel however they want about Julian Assange. However it all does color public preception. It is tough to pitch the public that the hacks were a serious offenses by a foriegn adversary years after they have been part of people culture across all political spectrums. 

A similarly case (in national headlines only) would be The Fappening. The public's take away wasn't that a crime had been committed and officials needed to get to the bottom of it. The public takeaway was that celebrities were stupid and either shouldn't have had a bunch of nude pics on their phones or been smart enough not to fall for a scam. Some media outlets refuse to exploit the nudes by listed or showing them but most ran with them. Similarly I feel many people think the DNC and Clinton campaign were stupid and Trump took advantage as any shrewd politician would. I personally disagree with that sentiment of course. 

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

The blood on the hands comment referenced the fact that Democrats too used the hacked material to their own ends.

Which democrats? 

Quote

As mentioned left leaning political vioce Bill Maher still had Julian Assange on his show even after it was known he'd been helping Russia.

Bill Mahar didn’t run for office and in no way represents the democratic party. Why does this matter?

Quote

Bernie Sanders made arguments which used the DNC hacked material to attack the primary process. Many of Bernie Sanders supporters inaccurately claimed the DNC and Clinton had illegally rigged the Primary. They treated the hacks as akin to a whistle blower rather than an attack against our election by a forgien adversary. 

Bernie is not a democrat.

Quote

 Of course people like Bill Maher and Michael Moore can feel however they want about Julian Assange. However it all does color public preception. It is tough to pitch the public that the hacks were a serious offenses by a foriegn adversary years after they have been part of people culture across all political spectrums. 

As can any private citizen or entertainer. 

Wikileaks has been exposed. I don’t think it’s a tough pitch at all. I have no trouble accepting that the hacks were a serious offense.

Quote

A similarly case (in national headlines only) would be The Fappening. The public's take away wasn't that a crime had been committed and officials needed to get to the bottom of it. The public takeaway was that celebrities were stupid and either shouldn't have had a bunch of nude pics on their phones or been smart enough not to fall for a scam. Some media outlets refuse to exploit the nudes by listed or showing them but most ran with them. 

Debatable, but OT.

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which democrats? 

All, after 2016 the DNC made concessions to Bernie Sanders supporters to quiet anger. Much of that anger was based in information learned from the hacks. They responded to the criticism over what was in the hacks rather than responding to the fact an aggressive foriegn nation attacked our election. 

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

Bernie is not a democrat.

But has been given a leadership position within its caucus. Link

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Wikileaks has been exposed. I don’t think it’s a tough pitch at all. I have no trouble accepting that the hacks were a serious offense.

Neither do I but where is the rest of the nation on the issue? I don't feel people are taking it as seriously as they should. 

Of course that is just my own subject take.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

All, after 2016 the DNC made concessions to Bernie Sanders supporters to quiet anger.

That’s using the hacks to further their own ends?

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Much of that anger was based in information learned from the hacks. They responded to the criticism over what was in the hacks rather than responding to the fact an aggressive foriegn nation attacked our election. 

If someone gets embarrassing info about you illegally, you still have to deal with the embarrassing info. You can’t just focus on the crime, especially since it took time to establish the connections.

Quote

 Neither do I but where is the rest of the nation on the issue? I don't feel people are taking it as seriously as they should. 

Where, indeed? You posted as if you had the answer to this. 

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

If someone gets embarrassing info about you illegally, you still have to deal with the embarrassing info. You can’t just focus on the crime, especially since it took time to establish the connections.

In  that embarrassing information wasn't criminal in nature I wouldn't expect those who are suppose to be my allies to make a mountain of stink out of it.

Also it was known Russia was behind this by the Convention. 

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

Where, indeed? You posted as if you had the answer to this. 

I am just posting my opinion on the matter. I don't believe Bernie Sanders committed a crime nor do I think it is a crime to interview Julian Assange. I do think a lot of poor judgement was used and I think that plays a role in what seems to me as national indifference towards Russia's interference. 

Quote

 

In other cases, however, ostensibly controversial issues got surprisingly little attention from respondents. Newspapers have been pounding out stories about possible collusion between the Trump administration and foreign governments before the 2016 election. On Friday, after this survey was administered, a grand jury indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers for allegedly hacking into computer and email systems with the intention of interfering in the 2016 election. The New York Times’ editorial board has called reported Russian attempts to interfere in American elections “a profound national security threat.” And yet, only 45 percent of survey respondents said outside influence from foreign governments is a major problem in American elections, along starkly partisan lines: 68 percent of Democrats versus only 22 percent of Republicans, and 40 percent of independents.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/poll-prri-republican-democratic-voter/565328/

 

 

 

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In  that embarrassing information wasn't criminal in nature I wouldn't expect those who are suppose to be my allies to make a mountain of stink out of it.

Was the information criminal? Or are you referring to the manner in which it was obtained? That, we know, was illegal. What we didn’t know quickly was the source.

Quote

Also it was known Russia was behind this by the Convention. 

Huh? 

On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators that the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to prevent Hillary Clinton[11] from winning the presidency.[12]

That’s after the election.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

Quote

I am just posting my opinion on the matter.

The sentiment of the public is a matter of a factual nature, not your opinion.

Such as from your link, where ~2/3 of democrats thought that outside influence was a problem, while it was only a third of that for republicans. You might conclude that republicans are indifferent. But then, is it truly indifference if your “news” source tells you that it’s a nothingburger, if they cover it at all? You can’t be concerned about something if you aren’t aware of it.

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

Huh? 

Here is an article written during the Convention in July of 2016:

"AS THE DEMOCRATIC National Convention continues its week-long stay in Philadelphia, accusations of Russian hacking continue to cloud the proceedings. At this point, it seems likely that Russia is responsible. What’s less clear is what that will mean going forward.

It’s been a bad stretch for the Democratic National Committee. Hackers broke into its servers months ago, stealing private emails, opposition research, and campaign correspondence. Last Friday, Wikileaks made nearly 20,000 of those private emails public, revealing embarrassing details of the political machine’s inner workings. DNC official allege that the Russian government is behind the breach. The New York Times reports that US intelligence agencies increasingly share that opinion. " Link

 Also this was a talking point during the campaign. Clinton mentioned it during debates and U.S. intelligence is know to have officially briefed by campaigns in August of 2016.

Quote

 During Sunday’s debate, Donald Trump once again said he doesn’t know whether Russia is trying to hack the U.S. election, despite Friday’s statement by the U.S. intelligence community pointing the finger at Putin –- and despite the fact that Trump was personally briefed on Russia’s role in the hacks by U.S. officials.

A senior U.S. intelligence official assured NBC News that cybersecurity and the Russian government’s attempts to interfere in the 2016 election have been briefed to, and discussed extensively with, both parties’ candidates, surrogates and leadership, since mid-August. "To profess not to know at this point is willful misrepresentation,” said the official. “The intelligence community has walked a very thin line in not taking sides, but both candidates have all the information they need to be crystal clear."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-was-told-russia-was-blame-hacks-long-debate-n663686

 

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

Such as from your link, where ~2/3 of democrats thought that outside influence was a problem, while it was only a third of that for republicans. You might conclude that republicans are indifferent. But then, is it truly indifference if your “news” source tells you that it’s a nothingburger, if they cover it at all? You can’t be concerned about something if you aren’t aware of it.

As a comparison to the other issues polled in the same link 2/3 was lower. For example 82% of Democrats felt wealthy individuals had too much influence over the electoral process and 81% of Republicans felt media bias was a major problem. Comparatively there is less concern despite all the indictments and guilty pleas. In my opinion it should be a greater concern. Especially among Democrats.  

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Here is an article written during the Convention in July of 2016:

"AS THE DEMOCRATIC National Convention continues its week-long stay in Philadelphia, accusations of Russian hacking continue to cloud the proceedings. At this point, it seems likely that Russia is responsible. What’s less clear is what that will mean going forward.

It’s been a bad stretch for the Democratic National Committee. Hackers broke into its servers months ago, stealing private emails, opposition research, and campaign correspondence. Last Friday, Wikileaks made nearly 20,000 of those private emails public, revealing embarrassing details of the political machine’s inner workings. DNC official allege that the Russian government is behind the breach. The New York Times reports that US intelligence agencies increasingly share that opinion. " Link

 Also this was a talking point during the campaign. Clinton mentioned it during debates and U.S. intelligence is know to have officially briefed by campaigns in August of 2016.

“Alleged” is not the same as “known” and at least half of the voting population did not seem to be receptive to any allegations made by Clinton during the debat

 

[Ten oz]

46 minutes ago, swansont said:

“Alleged” is not the same as “known” and at least half of the voting population did not seem to be receptive to any allegations made by Clinton during the debat

 

Right, but I am not accusing anyone of a crime. Also both campaigns to include surrogates were briefed in August. I already provided a link for that. So by August, at the latest, everyone knew what was happening. 

I don't want to derail this thread and have previously started a thread about Bernie Sanders and Russia. The rest of my response is there:

 

[StringJunky]

It looks like Mueller's done:

Quote

The U.S. Department of Justice is preparing to announce as early as next week that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has given the attorney general his report on the federal Russia investigation, CNN said on Wednesday.

After the expected announcement, U.S. Attorney General William Barr will review Mueller’s findings and submit his own report to Congress, CNN reported, citing unnamed sources. - Reuters

 

[Ten oz]

17 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It looks like Mueller's done:

 

Until Mueller's team announces it themselves I am skeptical. As a strategy to both misdirect the media and possibly pressure those involved in the investigation people associated with Trump have been making up timelines for the Mueller investigation since the beginning. It is difficult to know what to believe. Below are just couple examples and Trump's lawyers claiming to have information on when it would end. 

Quote

 

AUGUST 18, 2017

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House special counsel Ty Cobb predicts the cloud of an investigation into Russian meddling in the U.S. election will soon be lifted from President Donald Trump and says he would be “embarrassed” if it still hangs over the president in 2018.

20 May 2018

Special counsel Robert Mueller's office plans to complete its probe into alleged obstruction of the Russia inquiry by President Donald Trump by Sept. 1, the president's personal lawyer told The New York Times in an interview published Sunday.

 

 

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Until Mueller's team announces it themselves I am skeptical. As a strategy to both misdirect the media and possibly pressure those involved in the investigation people associated with Trump have been making up timelines for the Mueller investigation since the beginning. It is difficult to know what to believe. Below are just couple examples and Trump's lawyers claiming to have information on when it would end. 

 

I thought they won't announce it, since it goes straight into the hands of the AG, does it not? Since you pointed it out, and I noticed it does say "unnamed sources", we'll have to hold our horses then.

[iNow]

There's also the open question about whether the AG will share it with congress at all, or what he'll trim out before sharing it with congress

[Ten oz]

46 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I thought they won't announce it, since it goes straight into the hands of the AG, does it not? Since you pointed it out, and I noticed it does say "unnamed sources", we'll have to hold our horses then.

A new Attorney General William Barr was just confirmed. We all know the Mueller investigation was the reason the former Attorney General was fired.

All the news reports I have seen state that Barr is preparing to receive Mueller's report. That reads different to me than Mueller is preparing to turn in a final report. This could be Barr passive aggressively forcing Mueller to provide him some type of report. Firing Mueller would cause numerous legal challenges a Congressional investigation. Receiving Mueller's report and then telling Mueller standby pending eternal review might be the loophole. Of course that is highly speculative on my part. It could very well be that Mueller is done. 

Edited February 20, 2019 by Ten oz

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

There's also the open question about whether the AG will share it with congress at all, or what he'll trim out before sharing it with congress

This is true. Might have to wait until the next Democrat government, maybe?

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

There's also the open question about whether the AG will share it with congress at all, or what he'll trim out before sharing it with congress

It is suspicious timing to me coming just after Barr was confirmed, questions were raised about acting AG Whitaker lying to Congress, and Trump naming Rosenstein's replacement. Even if Mueller isn't finished and the report being headlined is just a preliminary summary I am sure Trump's team love to see what Mueller has so they can start preemptively attacking or defending people. 

[iNow]

34 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Even if Mueller isn't finished and the report being headlined is just a preliminary summary I am sure Trump's team love to see what Mueller has so they can start preemptively attacking or defending people.

And setting the narratives they wish to use in response as prep for the 2020 election...

[MigL]

Its almost time to have a refreshing beer and celebrate...
It's Mueller time !