Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

[theprestige]

And after spearfishing exploits gained access to the DNC and DCCC computers, that access was used to install malware.

So, hacked. At that point the means of ingress became moot.

They detected that the malware was installed. They did know that they had been compromised. It's just that the horse was already out of the barn.

If they had been doing regular, strict monitoring of the systems they probably would have known earlier. They wouldn't have needed wikileaks to tell them.

Do we know if the RNC has had their systems checked by professionals, or what the results were? No. And I doubt we will, unless there is the same sort of involuntary public exposure that the attacks on the DNC systems got.

They aren't going to go to the media and say, "Hey. We got caught the same way." It wouldn't fit in with their talking points.

The RNC was attacked because the RNC was expected to win the election.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The RNC was attacked because the RNC was expected to win the election.

You are wrong.

 

[theprestige]

You are wrong.

You're right. I meant to say, the DNC. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...mishandling of classified documents?

Someone seriously lacks perspective. Actually, more than one someone.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because it has never actually been about Russia, it has always been about getting Trump.

Those are not mutually exclusive you know.

 

[quadraginta]

Because it has never actually been about Russia, it has always been about getting Trump.

Speak for yourself.

I would feel exactly the same about Russian involvement in and tampering with the election regardless of party or politician.

 

[theprestige]

Those are not mutually exclusive you know.

It's just connecting the one to the other that's turning out to be a colossal bitch. For the FBI, anyway. Our resident "skeptics" seem to have it all figured out.

 

[CapelDodger]

Pointing out someone else's partisanship is partisan? If you say so.

Your belief that the investigation was partisan is a product of your partisanship. The investigation was and is not partisan. The partisanship is all yours.

 

[CapelDodger]

Speak for yourself.

I would feel exactly the same about Russian involvement in and tampering with the election regardless of party or politician.

That would be the non-partisan position, obviously.

 

[CapelDodger]

Let's be clear: When James Comey investigates a crime, that crime is real, even if Comey can't prove it, and never indicts on it.

Let's be clear : you think someone lied to the FBI about a crime they hadn't comitted.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your belief that the investigation was partisan is a product of your partisanship. The investigation was and is not partisan. The partisanship is all yours.

I didn’t say the investigation was partisan. I’m saying that Fudbucker’s interest in the investigation is partisan. Can you understand the difference?

 

[Ziggurat]

Let's be clear : you think someone lied to the FBI about a crime they hadn't comitted.

Did you not pay attention to what happened to Martha Stewart?

 

[theprestige]

Let's be clear : you think someone lied to the FBI about a crime they hadn't comitted.

The thing they were supposed to have done wasn't actually a crime. The only crime was lying about it. And that crime arose from the investigation itself.

 

[Ziggurat]

If Trump is President because V. Putin wanted him to be, and Trump officials -- including Jr. -- worked with him to that end, maybe Trump richly deserves to be "gotten."

That is a very, VERY big “if”.

 

[quadraginta]

That would be the non-partisan position, obviously.

Yup.

And I don't understand why it should be impossible to be non-partisan about a hostile foreign power tampering with our presidential elections while still being partisan about other things. Including which candidate I might support.

Some people apparently feel differently. I suspect they are much more partisan then I am, since it seems to overwhelm all other considerations for them.

Concern for the integrity of our laws and government not least among those considerations.

 

[Ziggurat]

You need to add IMO to the end of that.

As far as I am aware, it has been established that there was in fact Russian meddling going on with the election. I would have thought it would be high priority that any conclusion by any American politician should be investigated and uncovered.

Sure. But Fudbucker basically said he wants to see Trump and/or associates indicted for anything, regardless of whether it’s got anything to do with Russia and regardless of whether it’s a bull **** process crime like they hit Martha Stewart or Scooter Libby with.

 

[Bob001]

Let's be clear: When James Comey investigates a crime, that crime is real, even if Comey can't prove it, and never indicts on it.

What? Stewart was actually indicted and prosecuted for securities fraud, in addition to obstruction of justice, conspiracy and making false statements. The judge at her trial threw out the securities fraud charge. She was convicted of everything else. The SEC filed a civil case against her for insider trading. You think it's just "process?"

 

[Ziggurat]

What? Stewart was actually indicted and prosecuted for securities fraud, in addition to obstruction of justice, conspiracy and making false statements. The judge at her trial threw out the securities fraud charge. She was convicted of everything else. The SEC filed a civil case against her for insider trading. You think it's just "process?"

Why would a judge toss a charge rather than let a jury decide?

Because it’s a bull **** charge, and even letting it go to trial would be an injustice.

 

[quadraginta]

Why would a judge toss a charge rather than let a jury decide?

Because it’s a bull **** charge, and even letting it go to trial would be an injustice.

And it didn't go to trial.

The others did. By your logic that would suggest the others weren't bull **** charges.

After all, the judge had already demonstrated he wouldn't tolerate those.

 

[Ziggurat]

And it didn't go to trial.

The others did. By your logic that would suggest the others weren't bull **** charges.

After all, the judge had already demonstrated he wouldn't tolerate those.

Well, no. It’s a different kind of bull ****. One is bull **** because her actions simply were not criminal at all. The other is bull **** because they are hitting her with a technicality which she wasn’t savvy enough to avoid, but should never have been prosecuted because there was no underlying crime. The judge is supposed to toss the first kind of bull ****. The prosecutor is supposed to refrain from the second kind.