Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[CapelDodger]

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.

In the context of such a high-profile case orchestrated by someone as clued-up as Mueller it's surefire evidence he has probable cause, and very likely the issuing judge's written opinion to that effect, signed and dated.

 

[beren]

In the context of such a high-profile case orchestrated by someone as clued-up as Mueller it's surefire evidence he has probable cause, and very likely the issuing judge's written opinion to that effect, signed and dated.

I very much how you are right.

 

[sunmaster14]

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



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.

There is nowhere near enough information to infer that Mueller obtained a search warrant. If you could read more carefully than have, you would realize that.

First, Facebook has the right to give up information about an account if it so chooses. Second, Facebook only claims that a search warrant is required to compel the disclosure of an account's contents. Disclosing information about ad buys (which, by definition, are not private), and how much was paid (which is Facebook's business as much as the buyer's business), is not the same thing as divulging the contents of an account. Account contents would be non-public posts, messages, pictures, video, like and click information, etc.

There is no question that Mueller is conducting a criminal investigation, so that issuing subpoenas to 3rd parties is neither difficult nor surprising. Such a subpoena could compel Facebook to divulge ad buy info, but not account content.

Personally, I am doubtful that Mueller has probable cause to believe that an ad buy on Facebook is a crime. Why wouldn't a Russian citizen (or government entity) be allowed to buy ads on Facebook?

 

[beren]

There is nowhere near enough information to infer that Mueller obtained a search warrant. If you could read more carefully than have, you would realize that.

First, Facebook has the right to give up information about an account if it so chooses. Second, Facebook only claims that a search warrant is required to compel the disclosure of an account's contents. Disclosing information about ad buys (which, by definition, are not private), and how much was paid (which is Facebook's business as much as the buyer's business), is not the same thing as divulging the contents of an account. Account contents would be non-public posts, messages, pictures, video, like and click information, etc.

There is no question that Mueller is conducting a criminal investigation, so that issuing subpoenas to 3rd parties is neither difficult nor surprising. Such a subpoena could compel Facebook to divulge ad buy info, but not account content.

Personally, I am doubtful that Mueller has probable cause to believe that an ad buy on Facebook is a crime. Why wouldn't a Russian citizen (or government entity) be allowed to buy ads on Facebook?

I am confused by your intro. Who is "inferring" it? Reporters are "reporting" it. Where is the inference?

 

[Bob001]

There is nowhere near enough information to infer that Mueller obtained a search warrant. If you could read more carefully than have, you would realize that.
.....

Both CNN and the Wall Street Journal say he did. Why do you think otherwise?
http://www.businessinsider.com/muel...ussia-linked-facebook-ads-and-accounts-2017-9

 

[Bob001]

....
Why wouldn't a Russian citizen (or government entity) be allowed to buy ads on Facebook?

Foreign governments don't get to spend money attempting to influence American elections. It may also be that buying the ads isn't a crime, but lying about them to the FBI is, and Manafort, Flynn, Trump Jr. etc. may well have lied about their knowledge of the Russian ad campaign.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

The warrant is based on public information that Russians bought ad space on FaceBook and used it to illegally influence the US election.

What is it you don't see evidence of?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Not if Trump pisses the GOP off too much and they decide to go for installing Pence.

 

[beren]

The warrant is based on public information that Russians bought ad space on FaceBook and used it to illegally influence the US election.

What is it you don't see evidence of?

I must have expressed myself poorly because you seem to be responding to things I did not intend to convey.

I have my doubts that the mere existence of this warrant, by itself and in a vacuum, is a new and additional reason (behind what we already knew) to believe that Mueller has "something."

Some have claimed that the fact that a judge signed off on a warrant *must* mean that Mueller has string evidence of a crime- presumably beyond what is already known to be worth comment. I expressed doubt about this since judges are not always diligent about being warrant applications.

Thus, any antsy public evidence you cite does not address the point i am attempting to make.

Hopefully I have expressed myself better this time.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[sunmaster14]

Both CNN and the Wall Street Journal say he did. Why do you think otherwise?
http://www.businessinsider.com/muel...ussia-linked-facebook-ads-and-accounts-2017-9

Stop trusting trash secondary sources. Instead, go to the primary sources and read them. I've already given you the heads up. Do your homework before posting again please.

 

[sunmaster14]

Foreign governments don't get to spend money attempting to influence American elections.

Huh? Whose rule is that? Why shouldn't foreign governments be allowed to buy ads or otherwise speak to the American public? Also, even if you don't like the idea, the cure would be far worse than the disease. You would end up curtailing free speech rights for everyone if you tried to make that sort of thing a crime.

It may also be that buying the ads isn't a crime, but lying about them to the FBI is, and Manafort, Flynn, Trump Jr. etc. may well have lied about their knowledge of the Russian ad campaign.

That's quite a stretch. Even assuming Manafort et al were asked under oath about whether or not they knew the Russians were buying ads on Facebook (which is probably unlikely), and their denial of knowledge could be challenged to such an extent that an indictment becomes possible, how would getting information from Facebook about those ads help that case? Do you think the ads would have Manafort's fingerprints on them somehow? None of what you're saying makes any sense at all.

It seems to me that you're just operating in conspiracy fantasyland. It's kind of like a dream state, where events don't make logical sense. They just leave impressions on your mind that reinforce whatever you already want to believe.

 

[beren]

Stop trusting trash secondary sources. Instead, go to the primary sources and read them. I've already given you the heads up. Do your homework before posting again please.

CNN is a trash source?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I must have expressed myself poorly because you seem to be responding to things I did not intend to convey.

I have my doubts that the mere existence of this warrant, by itself and in a vacuum, is a new and additional reason (behind what we already knew) to believe that Mueller has "something."

Some have claimed that the fact that a judge signed off on a warrant *must* mean that Mueller has string evidence of a crime- presumably beyond what is already known to be worth comment. I expressed doubt about this since judges are not always diligent about being warrant applications.

Thus, any antsy public evidence you cite does not address the point i am attempting to make.

Hopefully I have expressed myself better this time.

The disconnect here is in whatever you are defining as "something". Mueller does have something, the Russians broke US law.

You seem to be ignoring that and inserting a special definition of "something".

 

[beren]

The disconnect here is in whatever you are defining as "something". Mueller does have something, the Russians broke US law.

You seem to be ignoring that and inserting a special definition of "something".

I must have expressed myself poorly because you seem to be responding to things I did not intend to convey.

I have my doubts that the mere existence of this warrant, by itself and in a vacuum, is a new and additional reason (beyond what we already knew) to believe that Mueller has "something."
Some have claimed that the fact that a judge signed off on a warrant *must* mean that Mueller has string evidence of a crime- presumably beyond what is already known to be worth comment. I expressed doubt about this since judges are not always diligent about being warrant applications.

Thus, any public evidence you cite does not address the point i am attempting to make.

Hopefully I have expressed myself better this time.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

The underlined word was a typpo that I have now corrected. Hopefully this clears up the confusion.

I'm not redefining something, I'm questioning if this proves new something.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I remember remarking quite a few times in the past few election cycles, most especially since 2010, that the dark money free speech in our election campaigns scares me not just because of the influence of deep corporate pockets. No, my bigger concern was what happens when governments would look at a ~$1 billion election cycle (both sides) and think that's chump change. As tight as the elections tend to be, maybe a couple hundred million tops is all it would take. Lots of governments have budgets into the trillions, foreign espionage many billions. A few assets might get burned for it, but that's still an enticing deal.

 

[Bob001]

Huh? Whose rule is that? Why shouldn't foreign governments be allowed to buy ads or otherwise speak to the American public? Also, even if you don't like the idea, the cure would be far worse than the disease. You would end up curtailing free speech rights for everyone if you tried to make that sort of thing a crime.
......

Not just "speak to the American public." It's an attempt to affect an election, and it's equivalent to a campaign contribution.

Under federal law, foreign governments, companies and citizens are prohibited from spending money to influence American elections. Facebook’s disclosure could add an additional element to the possible crimes under investigation by Mr. Mueller.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/facebook-russian-political-ads.html

Section 441e prohibits contributions and donations by foreign
nationals to all United States elections, whether federal, state, or
local. It is one of the two federal campaign financing statutes that
reach activities directed at both federal and nonfederal elections.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal/legacy/2013/09/30/electbook-0507.pdf [Page 164]

 

[Belz...]

Mueller's team executes search warrant.

Without a fair trial?

Poor thing!

 

[sunmaster14]

Not just "speak to the American public." It's an attempt to affect an election, and it's equivalent to a campaign contribution.

No, that's ridiculous. Attempting to affect an election is not even remotely equivalent to a campaign contribution. There is all kinds of case law about this. In order for it to be a constructive contribution to a campaign, there has to be coordination with the campaign, and it has to involve direct advocacy in favor of a candidate (or against an opponent) rather than be confined to issue-specific advocacy. In the Facebook case, the vast majority of ads were described as focused on a particular issue and did not refer to a candidate, so there wouldn't even be a problem with coordination (which hasn't been credibly alleged anyway).

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/facebook-russian-political-ads.html

Well, that little snippet at the end of a long NY Times article is simply incorrect. Note there is no cite to any statute or regulation.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal/legacy/2013/09/30/electbook-0507.pdf [Page 164]

First, section 2 U.S.C. Section 441 does not even exist anymore. It was replaced by the BCRA (also known as McCain-Feingold). Second, the excerpt from the DOJ historical summary does not even say what you imply it says. It still speaks to contributions and donations, which as I said before, requires coordination with the campaign. Third, the relevant portion of the code created by the BCRA is in 52 U.S. Code § 30121 and reads:

(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title);

(a)(1)(C) is the only provision which might be applicable. However, if you look up the definition of electioneering communication, you find:

(A) In general
(i) The term “electioneering communication” means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which—
(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office;
(II) is made within—
(aa) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for the office sought by the candidate; or
(bb) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate;

which wouldn't apply to the vast majority of the Facebook ads at issue. Finally, I'll note that the prohibition on electioneering communications in the case of corporations was the central issue in Citizens United, and the SCOTUS declared that prohibition unconstitutional. The prohibition against foreign nationals engaging in independent electioneering would get a similar decision I suspect, if it became a real case or controversy.

 

[sunmaster14]

CNN is a trash source?

Actually it is but I was referring to the secondary nature of the source being trash. Also, I was referring to Business Insider, which is even trashier than CNN.

The primary source is the WSJ article. If you read it, then you'll find that the claim there was a search warrant involved is pure speculation based on a misreading of Facebook's privacy policy. The article refers to "some people" who say that Facebook wouldn't have given up that information without being presented with a search warrant. That is way too much of a stretch for me to infer that a search warrant indeed was issued.

From all that I know, I predict that a search warrant was not issued, and that Facebook either gave up the information willingly (probably because it was chastened for having claimed earlier that no such ads were ever bought by Russians), or in response to a subpoena from Mueller.

 

[beren]

Actually it is but I was referring to the secondary nature of the source being trash. Also, I was referring to Business Insider, which is even trashier than CNN.

The primary source is the WSJ article. If you read it, then you'll find that the claim there was a search warrant involved is pure speculation based on a misreading of Facebook's privacy policy. The article refers to "some people" who say that Facebook wouldn't have given up that information without being presented with a search warrant. That is way too much of a stretch for me to infer that a search warrant indeed was issued.

From all that I know, I predict that a search warrant was not issued, and that Facebook either gave up the information willingly (probably because it was chastened for having claimed earlier that no such ads were ever bought by Russians), or in response to a subpoena from Mueller.

You need to do your research better. CNN is reporting that they have conformed the warrant.

The post you were referring to mentioned both WSJ and CNN in addition to business insider.

I mentioned CNN because I have not read the WSJ article because of paywall, so I cannot say how they report the warrant. However, they are not the only primary source. CNN independently confirms the warrant and are not just regurgitating the WSJ article. This was stated IN THE POST YOU REPLIED TO. Thus, if you linked your reply solely to the WSJ article, you are in the wrong. You told someone to do more research and read primary sources when either you had had not done so, or you were ignoring what they said.

Your response was inaccurate, careless, uninformed and ironically failed by not researching. Or else you were dishonest.



Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk