Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[gregthehammer]

You see this, right here? This is what people are complaining about. How do you know they have not yielded fruit? How do you know they are dead ends?

You've flipped from saying that we just can't possibly make any inferences at all over what the bare facts are, no matter how opprobrious they may appear, to concluding that the investigation is running into dead ends, presumably because you personally haven't heard the story in the news for a while.

I'm sure you can think of a good reason for your sudden abundance of credulity, but it doesn't escape anyone's notice that it happens along partisan lines.

Well, it is obvious no fruit has been yielded, otherwise there would be leaks from the juice of the fruit, but even if there were juice stains indicating the source of said leaks were from fruit, we can't trust the veracity of the ... something something something ?!

 

[Belz...]

That's an asinine example. Nothing we have is nearly as solid as that. Don't conflate your made-up, clear and definitive evidence with the allegations and speculations in question here.

If you want to make up an example, at least make up one that is a wee bit closer to the truth. For example:

Accepted: A weapon was found in Mr. X's car, with Mr. X's fingerprints on it, and Mr. X has no alibi for the time of the murder.
Uncertain: Whether the weapon is the one used in the murder.

Ok, I'll take that example. It's even more stupid and a better illustration of what I'm saying! Thanks for bringing it up!

You look for the suspect, find him, find a weapon like the one used in the murder, find fingerprints on it and a ton of circumstancial evidence, and you let him off the hook by inventing a stupid reason. Yes, very typical of you.

 

[quadraginta]

The correct response to having a HUAC precedent is not to say "now it's our turn".

Nor is it to say, over half a century later, 'Let's not introduce the new idea of politically motivated investigations.', like it is something without precedent.

 

[Stacko]

Epic screw up by Nunes in the unmasking affair as Rice has told investigators why she unmasked Trump aides.

Former national security adviser Susan Rice privately told House investigators that she unmasked the identities of senior Trump officials to understand why the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates was in New York late last year, multiple sources told CNN.

The New York meeting preceded a separate effort by the UAE to facilitate a back-channel communication between Russia and the incoming Trump White House.

The crown prince, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, arrived in New York last December in the transition period before Trump was sworn into office for a meeting with several top Trump officials, including Michael Flynn, the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his top strategist Steve Bannon, sources said.

...

Rice's previously undisclosed revelation in a classified setting shines new light on a practice that had come under sharp criticism from the committee chairman, California Rep. Devin Nunes, and President Donald Trump, who previously accused Rice of committing a crime.

But her explanation appears to have satisfied some influential Republicans on the committee, undercutting both Nunes and Trump and raising new questions about whether any Trump associates tried to arrange back-channel discussions with the Russians.

"I didn't hear anything to believe that she did anything illegal," Florida Rep. Tom Rooney, a Republican helping to lead the panel's Russia invesigation, told CNN of Rice's testimony. He declined to discuss any of the contents of her classified remarks.

Couldn't happen to a more craven lying hack. Hopefully his constituents do the right thing and direct him to the unemployment line next election.

 

[varwoche]

Do you accept hypotheses as true, without testing, simply because they feel right to you and agree with your belief?

How do you square this phony, high horse posturing with your own fact-challenged claims? e.g the notion that Trump et al are being unfairly scandalized by contacts with ordinary Russian citizens, and even ordinary Americans of Russian descent.

Still waiting for a cite, and taking in the sound of crickets...

 

[Stacko]

Mueller's team executes search warrant to obtain Facebook ad buy details.

Facebook gave Mueller and his team copies of ads and related information it discovered on its site linked to a Russian troll farm, as well as detailed information about the accounts that bought the ads and the way the ads were targeted at American Facebook users, a source with knowledge of the matter told CNN.

The disclosure, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, may give Mueller's office a fuller picture of who was behind the ad buys and how the ads may have influenced voter sentiment during the 2016 election.

Facebook did not give copies of the ads to members of the Senate and House intelligence committees when it met with them last week on the grounds that doing so would violate their privacy policy, sources with knowledge of the briefings said. Facebook's policy states that, in accordance with the federal Stored Communications Act, it can only turn over the stored contents of an account in response to a search warrant.

In order to obtain this warrant it means that Mueller has concluded that specific foreign individuals committed a crime by making a "contribution" in connection with an election. It also means that he has evidence of that crime that convinced a federal magistrate judge of two things:

1. that there was good reason to believe that the foreign individual committed the crime.

2. that evidence of the crime existed on Facebook

If any Trump associate knew about the foreign contributions that Mueller's search warrant focused on and helped that effort in a tangible way, like providing voter data, they could be charged. In addition, anyone who agreed to be part of this effort in any way could be charged with criminal conspiracy. They wouldn't need to be involved in the whole operation or know everyone involved but they would have to agree to be part of some piece of it.

 

[Bob001]

An account of the extensive Russian disinformation industry at work:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/magazine/rt-sputnik-and-russias-new-theory-of-war.html

 

[beren]

Call me cynical, but the idea that federal investigators only get warrants when they have evidence of a crime strikes me as native these days.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Bob001]

Call me cynical, but the idea that federal investigators only get warrants when they have evidence of a crime strikes me as native these days.
.....

I'm sure you mean naive, right? The FBI "going native," whatever that might mean, would be a subject of concern.

Search warrants are issued by judges after authorities prove that they have "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed. That's the process. That doesn't mean they can't investigate by other methods. But they don't issue warrants for themselves. What do you think is different "these days?"
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrants-and-probable-cause.html

 

[beren]

I'm well aware of how is supposed to work. I am cynical about it actually happening.

The Fisa court is the first example that comes to mind that suggests that judges may not really be holding investigators to the proper standards.

For example

http://www.npr.org/2013/06/13/191226106/fisa-court-appears-to-be-rubberstamp-for-government-requests

The criticism of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is simple: that it's a rubber stamp, and that the government always gets what it wants. And here's a number that seem to support that: 1,856. That's the number of applications presented to the court by the government last year. And it's also the number that the court approved: 100 percent success.

Obviously this doesn't prove anything, Ave the article mentions arguments from the other side, but then, I merely claimed cynicism, not surety.

Also, to avoid being misunderstood, I am not claiming Mueller used the Fisa court. I am using as an example of how the courts are not always as diligent as I would like and this why I am not as convinced as I would like to be that Mueller had something.



Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Lurch]

I'm well aware of how is supposed to work. I am cynical about it actually happening.

The Fisa court is the first example that comes to mind that suggests that judges may not really be holding investigators to the proper standards.

For example

http://www.npr.org/2013/06/13/191226106/fisa-court-appears-to-be-rubberstamp-for-government-requests



Obviously this doesn't prove anything, Ave the article mentions arguments from the other side, but then, I merely claimed cynicism, not surety.

Also, to avoid being misunderstood, I am not claiming Mueller used the Fisa court. I am using as an example of how the courts are not always as diligent as I would like and this why I am not as convinced as I would like to be that Mueller had something.



Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

While I'd be reticent to apply cynicism, surely an attitude of watchfulness is ever warranted in all matters where humans are involved. That's why the Founders were wise in structuring the system of government with checks and balances built in.

If we let rampant cynicism inform our thought processes in the Mueller investigation, then we must admit the possibility that the 'shadow' government' is indeed practically running the whole kaboodle. That's tinfoil hat territory.

By way of exercise I try to see what advantage would obtain in *falsely* bringing out the embarrassment to America of having been hoodwinked by a pathetic usurper colluding with a foreign Power. It just doesn't compute. To me only a search for the truth would inspire such a potential debasement. But then, perhaps I'm too naive!

 

[Bob001]

......
Also, to avoid being misunderstood, I am not claiming Mueller used the Fisa court. I am using as an example of how the courts are not always as diligent as I would like and this why I am not as convinced as I would like to be that Mueller had something.
.....

Considering the intense scrutiny Mueller is under by both the Republican Congress and by Trump's scorched-earth lawyers, I suspect that his office handles all matters -- including warrants -- with far more care to details and technicalities than than, say, the average DA going after a neighborhood drug dealer. When Mueller presents his conclusions -- which will likely include indictments -- I suspect they will be unassailable. I expect plea bargains, not trials.

 

[BobTheCoward]

A silver lining is someone rich and powerful finally having to deal with a callous and arbitrary court as much as the rest of us.

 

[beren]

Considering the intense scrutiny Mueller is under by both the Republican Congress and by Trump's scorched-earth lawyers, I suspect that his office handles all matters -- including warrants -- with far more care to details and technicalities than than, say, the average DA going after a neighborhood drug dealer. When Mueller presents his conclusions -- which will likely include indictments -- I suspect they will be unassailable. I expect plea bargains, not trials.

I hope you are right. I lack faith in humanity though.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Call me cynical, but the idea that federal investigators only get warrants when they have evidence of a crime strikes me as native these days....

Dude, FaceBook admitted the ad buys by Russia occurred, even noting they were paid for in Rubles. Your FISA example is a red herring.

What is it you think was suspect about Mueller's warrant?

 

[beren]

Dude, FaceBook admitted the ad buys by Russia occurred, even noting they were paid for in Rubles.

What is it you think was suspect about Mueller's warrant?

Nothing. That's not what I said. People are speculating that the warrant means Mueller " has uncovered a great deal of evidence through other avenues of Russian election interference" and other similar sentiments. E.g., that this is proof that Mueller definitely had something. I want that too be true, but am unconvinced that the existence of a warrant proves it.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nothing. That's not what I said. People are speculating that the warrant means Mueller " has uncovered a great deal of evidence through other avenues of Russian election interference" and other similar sentiments. E.g., that this is proof that Mueller definitely had something. I want that too be true, but am unconvinced that the existence of a warrant proves it.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

The public evidence of Russian interference in the election is conclusive. Mueller may have more or not, there is no question of interference.

That leaves the extent and who participated, in particular who colluded.

There is direct evidence in the way of Don Jr's emails that he was interested in colluding. There are a dozen Trump insiders with Russian connections.

What is it you think is so weak or iffy about the case?

 

[beren]

The public evidence of Russian interference in the election is conclusive. Mueller may have more or not, there is no question of interference.

That leaves the extent and who participated, in particular who colluded.

There is direct evidence in the way of Don Jr's emails that he was interested in colluding. There are a dozen Trump insiders with Russian connections.

What is it you think is so weak or iffy about the case?

Who said it was weak or iffy? Not me.

I said that I don't trust that the fact that a judge issued a warrant is surefire evidence that Mueller had something damming because Idon't believe that judges anyways give warrant applications deep scrutiny.

There is a chasm between what seems to be pretty clear to you and me and what can, with the evidence I am aware of, meet the burden of proof in a courtroom.

Some are saying the existence of this warrant is proof of the existence of other solid evidence. I hope that is true, but don't want top get my hopes too high.

 

[CapelDodger]

Considering the intense scrutiny Mueller is under by both the Republican Congress and by Trump's scorched-earth lawyers, I suspect that his office handles all matters -- including warrants -- with far more care to details and technicalities than than, say, the average DA going after a neighborhood drug dealer. When Mueller presents his conclusions -- which will likely include indictments -- I suspect they will be unassailable.

Exactly. Mueller knows that if this (or any) warrant doesn't come up to "probable cause" then the whole "fruit of the poison tree" thing kicks in and he really doesn't want that.

I expect plea bargains, not trials.

I don't think loyalty is going to complicate the horse-trading much, if at all.

 

[Stacko]

I expect plea bargains, not trials.

I expect pardons and GOP congress letting him get away with it.