Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[sunmaster14]

Second helpings for me.

https://twitter.com/BostonGlobe/status/909949001839071232

If Manafort is being indicted, and it's still quite speculative at this point, even if Mueller's people really did tell Manafort he would be indicted, it's likely for illegal lobbying or financial shenanigans before he was involved in Trump's campaign. Still a nothingburger that is.

 

[BobTheCoward]

And it isn't.

What Noah described would be.

 

[sunmaster14]

What Noah described would be.

No it wouldn't. I did already go over this just a few days ago.

ETA: Sheesh. It was only yesterday. See here.

 

[NoahFence]

No it wouldn't. I did already go over this just a few days ago.

ETA: Sheesh. It was only yesterday. See here.

Its illegal. And arguably an act of war.

Russia installed our president, and you're ok with that.
That's disgusting.

 

[sunmaster14]

Its illegal. And arguably an act of war.

Russia installed our president, and you're ok with that.
That's disgusting.

I am absolutely floored by the logic and facts you have mustered in rebuttal. I am literally rolling on the floor. Speaking figuratively of course.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No it wouldn't. I did already go over this just a few days ago.

ETA: Sheesh. It was only yesterday. See here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...late-u-s-election-law/?utm_term=.3b4f26fa82f7

The law is clear that foreign nationals and foreign corporations are prohibited from making contributions or spending money to influence a federal, state or local election in the United States. The ban includes independent expenditures made in connection with an election

that is what noahfence described.

 

[NoahFence]

Glad to be of service.

I'll try to go easy on the Trumpkins when the "I told you so's" start raining down. No guarantees though.

 

[chrispy]

I am absolutely floored by the logic and facts you have mustered in rebuttal. I am literally rolling on the floor. Speaking figuratively of course.

There is nothing to see here! NOTHING! TO! SEE! HERE!!!... Oh, what? http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/pol...tml?s_campaign=bostonglobe:socialflow:twitter

ETA: interesting quote from that article... “They seem to be pursuing this more aggressively, taking a much harder line, than you’d expect to see in a typical white collar case,” said Jimmy Gurulé, a Notre Dame law professor and former federal prosecutor. “This is more consistent with how you’d go after an organized crime syndicate.”

 

[beren]

How do you reach that conclusion?

He didn't reach that conclusion,.
Ask skeptic ginger. She is sure no one thinks that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He didn't reach that conclusion,.
Ask skeptic ginger. She is sure no one thinks that.

Which conclusion are you referring to?

You appear to be conflating three different things.

There is evidence there was a crime. Pretty sure there is a thread consensus on that one.

We don't know yet if Mueller has evidence of collusion though all the Russian contacts with Trump insiders and Don Jr's emails suggest there he may. Kind of hard to deny this one.

And we don't know yet is any of the evidence implicates Trump. And I have drawn no conclusions about this one.

 

[beren]

Which conclusion are you referring to?

You appear to be conflating three different things.

There is evidence there was a crime. Pretty sure there is a thread consensus on that one.

We don't know yet if Mueller has evidence of collusion though all the Russian contacts with Trump insiders and Don Jr's emails suggest there he may. Kind of hard to deny this one.

And we don't know yet is any of the evidence implicates Trump. And I have drawn no conclusions about this one.

The one that was quored and highlighted.

 

[sunmaster14]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...late-u-s-election-law/?utm_term=.3b4f26fa82f7

that is what noahfence described.

I'm actually very disappointed in you Bob. I thought you were more rigorous than this. If you actually read my analysis, you will see that I quoted the exact same statute that the WaPo did, only I did so accurately, and the WaPo did so misleadingly.

Bottom line: I am right, and the WaPo is wrong. As are you.

As is Noah, but that's not saying very much is it?

 

[quadraginta]

If Manafort is being indicted, and it's still quite speculative at this point, even if Mueller's people really did tell Manafort he would be indicted, it's likely for illegal lobbying or financial shenanigans before he was involved in Trump's campaign. Still a nothingburger that is.

It appears that there were two separate FISA warrants executed on Manafort.

The first, as you say, was for activities prior to his association with the Trump Campaign.

The second? Maybe not so much.

A secret order authorized by the court that handles the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) began after Manafort became the subject of an FBI investigation that began in 2014. It centered on work done by a group of Washington consulting firms for Ukraine's former ruling party, the sources told CNN.
The surveillance was discontinued at some point last year for lack of evidence, according to one of the sources.
The FBI then restarted the surveillance after obtaining a new FISA warrant that extended at least into early this year.
Sources say the second warrant was part of the FBI's efforts to investigate ties between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives. Such warrants require the approval of top Justice Department and FBI officials, and the FBI must provide the court with information showing suspicion that the subject of the warrant may be acting as an agent of a foreign power.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The one that was quored and highlighted.

Seriously, instead of just cutting and pasting the quote you make me go back through a post chase to find it? I'm not going to waste much more time with you given you can't just move on and clarify your posts. You add needless pouty little word games to the discussion like this one:

I gave you everything you need. Try doing some research.

But I digress. Back to the quote in question:

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:

Yes, that is correct.

You've admitted as much yourself:

I believe, based on the recent new reports (and the fact that they fit in with much other previously known info) that Russians bought quite a lot of targeted ads. This was already known, so the existence of a warrant is not the thing that reveals this.

Maybe you are not aware that the ad buys were illegal.

Apparently EC did not know it either:

What law did they break by buying ad space on Facebook?

Those ads were bought to sway our election. That's against the law.

Which makes your comment in this post unintelligible:

How do you reach that conclusion?

He didn't reach that conclusion,.
Ask skeptic ginger. She is sure no one thinks that.

You seem to be confusing conclusions again but who knows given your snark is getting in the way of me following your discussion.

 

[quadraginta]

Come with me here. Trump is perhaps the single most hated politician in our lifetime. I mean, seriously hated by a large number of people. People who are near desperate to get him out of office any way they can.

Do you disagree with that assessment?

I am old enough to remember (and have voted for) Richard Nixon. Perhaps you are not.

In answer to your question, yes ... I disagree with that assessment. Trump hasn't even begun to reach that level yet.

Give him time, though. I'm sure he will not disappoint.

<snip>

This renders the rest of your post somewhat moot.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm actually very disappointed in you Bob. I thought you were more rigorous than this. If you actually read my analysis, you will see that I quoted the exact same statute that the WaPo did, only I did so accurately, and the WaPo did so misleadingly.

Bottom line: I am right, and the WaPo is wrong. As are you.

As is Noah, but that's not saying very much is it?

You are talking about the ads as they appeared. Im talking about the ads as described here. Notice I never said just "the ads" but said "described.

 

[BadBoy]

Your highlights are misleading. The second highlight does not refer back to the first highlight, since it is in a previous sentence.

Are you living on another planet?

 

[quadraginta]

Are you living on another planet?

Unlikely. His response times are far too short. A minute or less in some cases. Even Venus at its closest approach would take any signal a round trip of nearly five minutes. That doesn't include any time to read or compose an answer.

Sad to say, it is more probable that we have to share the same planet.

 

[Octavo]

What makes you think I'm not the one who writes them?

This renders the rest of your post somewhat moot.

The Financial Times weighs in...

CNN said federal investigators had received permission from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to intercept Mr Manafort’s communications as far back as 2014 because of concerns about his work in Ukraine.

“If they execute a search warrant on your residence, you’re screwed,” said one FBI agent. “The special counsel has amazing resources . . . On a scale of one to 10 with 10 being the worst, this would be a 10.”

https://www.ft.com/content/6501b256-9ce7-11e7-8cd4-932067fbf946

 

[Belz...]

No more so than yours.

Oh, sure. Just mirror my own words. That worked so well back in elementary school.

Sure, you can form your opinion on the weight of what you consider to be evidence. Feel free. But don't insist that I accept your very large pile of anonymous allegations, hypothetical that might mean something, and inferences based on speculation as being 'evidence'.

What I'm insisting on is you ceasing your lies and word-twistings, pretenses and denials, all the while claiming to be looking at this issue dispassionately.