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

[Skeptic Ginger]

The argument there is "What does tax evasion have to do with Russian meddling in the election?" They're unrelated, so Mueller wants blood. I remember reading someone online say Mueller is only going after Manafort in this way because he's frustrated that there's nothing on Trump, and this kind of political prosecution is supposed to send a message to others to just tell the special prosecutor what he wants to hear.

I still don't understand how they could not know that number. Shouldn't it be easy to find out who he called? Of course, Trump's brilliant legal defense might argue that Mueller can't prove who answered the phone, then conceding, yeah, he talked to Daddy, but about adoptions -- and then about dirt on Hillary -- and then about how great collusion is because it's not illegal.

People by now are anesthetized to the Tower meeting. Trump is so cartoonishly villainous that there's very little intrigue. It's like the SNL sketch where Michael Che plays Lester Holt and asks Alec Baldwin, "Why did you fire James Comey?" "For that Russia thing." Bewildered, Che looks around, "Wait... did I just get him? Is it over?"

Seems you're having a hard time staying in character when the crazy stuff is what there is to respond to.

I like the real Cain and the sarcastic Cain too, BTW.

I would imagine the news media could pay one of those, 'we'll find the number for you for a fee' services. Not sure why someone hasn't done that yet.

 

[Cain]

Really? A "deep state" that no evidence supports exists outside the minds of conspiracy theorists?

It depends what powers you want to attribute to the "Deep State." The notion that there are career bureaucrats with a vested world view, status quo bias seems not only perfectly sane, but likely. A new principal promises to radically turn things around. Well, is there a culture -- a way of doing things -- that she's up against? Sure. Critics of Trump are quick to cite transgressions against established norms, careerists who are fed up and quit. Suppose a peacenik was actually elected president. Would the Pentagon just roll over and say, "Well, I guess we shouldn't have hundreds of bases around the country because Noam Chomsky here just won the Electoral College. Go ahead and slash the budget."

David Frum says, "Once you realize that 'deep state' is code for 'the rule of law,' you can translate their jibberish into English."

 

[Cain]

Seems you're having a hard time staying in character when the crazy stuff is what there is to respond to.

Yeah... I also think it's because my second favorite parent is in the hospital. (Who talks like that?)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah... I also think it's because my second favorite parent is in the hospital. (Who talks like that?)

Sorry to hear that.

May the science be with you.

 

[acbytesla]

The argument there is "What does tax evasion have to do with Russian meddling in the election?" They're unrelated, so Mueller wants blood. I remember reading someone online say Mueller is only going after Manafort in this way because he's frustrated that there's nothing on Trump, and this kind of political prosecution is supposed to send a message to others to just tell the special prosecutor what he wants to hear.

That Manafort was doing much of his work for pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians is significant. That a prosecutor found these crimes while seeking information about Russian meddling into US elections is not surprising.

I still don't understand how they could not know that number. Shouldn't it be easy to find out who he called? Of course,

I agree. Mueller ABSOLUTELY knows.

Trump's brilliant legal defense might argue that Mueller can't prove who answered the phone, then conceding, yeah, he talked to Daddy, but about adoptions -- and then about dirt on Hillary -- and then about how great collusion is because it's not illegal.

Except it is illegal. Very illegal.

People by now are anesthetized to the Tower meeting. Trump is so cartoonishly villainous that there's very little intrigue. It's like the SNL sketch where Michael Che plays Lester Holt and asks Alec Baldwin, "Why did you fire James Comey?" "For that Russia thing." Bewildered, Che looks around, "Wait... did I just get him? Is it over?"

I think 40 percent of America doesn't care that Trump lies. And 50 percent hates it. Trump is never going to be impeached or adequately held accountable by the GOP Congress. But if the House and or Senate flips, the truth will be harder to ignore.

 

[Aridas]

That is the best summation of the situation I have seen...especially he highlighted part.

I've seen several Trump supporters wearing "Proud to be a Deplorable" T-shirts. They are so ignorant and/or stupid that they fail to realize that Clinton was referring to the half of Trump supporters who are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic". By wearing those T-shirts, they are telling the world they are proud to be those very things.

And why wouldn't they be? Those just look like what are widely embraced as traditional Christian values among certain large segments of conservative Christianity.

 

[kellyb]

Think about it. In one case Clinton paid an agency to do research. PAID, got that, it wasn't a foreign government and it wasn't a donation from Steele to the Clinton campaign.

It is so easy for these propagandists to cherry pick the similarities and ignore the core differences. And of course they put rebuttal pundits on Fox News that bungle the rebuttal.

I think the primary difference is this (quoting the wiki):

Mayer reported that when the Clinton campaign "indirectly employed" Steele, Elias created a "legal barrier" by acting "as a firewall" between the campaign and Steele. Thus, any details were "protected by attorney-client privilege. Fusion briefed only Elias on the reports. Simpson sent Elias nothing on paper—he was briefed orally."[8] Only several months after signing the contract with Fusion GPS did Steele learn that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were the ultimate clients.[8] The firewall was reportedly so effective that even campaign principals John Podesta and Robby Mook did not know that Steele was on the Democratic payroll until Mother Jones reported on the issue on October 31, 2016

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think the primary difference is this (quoting the wiki):

That's one difference. But I'd say that the primary difference is that Steele got his information from Russian contacts he had developed over years as a spy who were acting as independent agents, whereas the Trump campaign were collaborating with or actually were agents of the Russian government who were acting according to Putin's orders.

 

[kellyb]

That's one difference. But I'd say that the primary difference is that Steele got his information from Russian contacts he had developed over years as a spy who were acting as independent agents, whereas the Trump campaign were collaborating with or actually were agents of the Russian government who were acting according to Putin's orders.

It would be Steele himself who'd be the "foreign person"/ "foreign national", though, if the FBI were to look at wrongdoing on the part of Clinton under the same law, right?

If we're talking about this law?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The point is not that foreigners were giving information, it is that they were compensated for their work in the case of Clinton and not in the case of Trump. The latter is a contribution, the former isn't.

 

[uke2se]

I think the primary difference is this (quoting the wiki):

"Inderectly employed" in the same way as I am "indirectly employing" a Chinese child labourer when I order goods from Ali Express.

 

[kellyb]

The point is not that foreigners were giving information, it is that they were compensated for their work in the case of Clinton and not in the case of Trump. The latter is a contribution, the former isn't.

The law in question also says it's illegal to "solicit" a "thing of value", which at least in theory could include offer of payment as part of the solicitation.

Either way, the whole thing breaks down by virtue of the multiple levels of nobody knowing who was talking to who.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If we're talking about this law?

That's the one that would be potentially relevant to Steele/Clinton. There are many that would be relevant to the Trump campaign.

 

[kellyb]

That's the one that would be potentially relevant to Steele/Clinton. There are many that would be relevant to the Trump campaign.

That's the one they were talking about on CNN regarding Trump-Russia, too.

From Skeptic Ginger's The Hill link:

Take the crime being proclaimed as “open and shut.” Before Camerota came to this conclusion, the CNN anchors discussed federal election laws that make it a “crime for any person to solicit, accept, or receive, anything of value from a foreign person or U.S. political campaign for the purpose of influencing any elections for federal office.” Thus, if Trump Jr. was willing to review evidence of criminal conduct by Clinton, it must be a type of foreign campaign contribution and, therefore, a federal crime.

eta:
But yes, this particular law is probably only a tiny slice of all the relevant laws Trump has broken.

 

[smartcooky]

"Inderectly employed" in the same way as I am "indirectly employing" a Chinese child labourer when I order goods from Ali Express.

Indeed.

The Clinton campaign employed "an agency" to find out what they wanted to know in much the same way that an organisation or an individual might hire a Private Investigator to dig up dirt. If I hire a PI, I am not responsible for any illegal action he commits - the contractor is not responsible for how the contractee does his work.

The Trump campaign directly met with foreign nationals (Russians) who hacked (or arranged to hack) into the Democratic Party servers to steal the information they wanted.

The former is not a criminal act, but the latter is, under 18 USC § 953 (the stolen information is "something of value"), and if more than one of them was involved, then they have also committed Conspiracy to Defraud under 18 U.S.C. § 371

 

[kellyb]

Indeed.

The Clinton campaign employed "an agency" to find out what they wanted to know in much the same way that an organisation or an individual might hire a Private Investigator to dig up dirt. If I hire a PI, I am not responsible for any illegal action he commits - the contractor is not responsible for how the contractee does his work.

The Trump campaign directly met with foreign nationals (Russians) who hacked (or arranged to hack) into the Democratic Party servers to steal the information they wanted.

The former is not a criminal act, but the latter is, under 18 USC § 953 (the stolen information is "something of value"), and if more than one of them was involved, then they have also committed Conspiracy to Defraud under 18 U.S.C. § 371

Yeah.

Heck, Trump was OPENLY soliciting Russia for info when he said “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."

 

[LSSBB]

For some definition of "pro-Trumper"...

1. No. That's stupid.

2. Yes.
3. Yes and no. Yes because (2) is a yes. No because regardless of the origins of the case, he's still getting due process.

4. I've got nothing but speculation. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Were you wearing your leather jacket when you jumped that shark, Fonz?

 

[kellyb]

Were you wearing your leather jacket when you jumped that shark, Fonz?

"Deep state" is a pretty ill-defined concept. When I think of it, I think of the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. "The intelligence community".

Obviously, the FBI going after Manafort is...that part of "the deep state" looking to undermine Trump. Which, good.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The "deep state" thing is silly. It requires the belief that there were people who were in possession of two sets of facts - that Hillary Clinton was being investigated by the FBI, and that Donald Trump was being investigated by the FBI - and that in order to help Clinton win and ensure Trump lost, they sat on the fact that Trump was being investigated and made public the fact that Clinton was being investigated.

More specifically, in order to believe that the Mueller investigation is part of the "Deep State", you have to believe that Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller and has repeatedly said he is satisfied with Mueller's work, is part of the "Deep State". Rosenstein is a life-long Republican and was appointed to his position by Donald Trump. In fact, before he appointed him AG, Trump refused Rosenstein's letter of resignation, which he wrote when Trump issued an order for all US Attorneys to resign. Only 6 people in the senate voted against his appointment, and all 6 of them were Democrats (including Elizabeth Warren). Rosenstein is the person who wrote Trump's justification for firing Comey.

Same goes for Christopher Wray. Lifelong Republican. Appointed by Trump to replace Comey, calling him "a man of impeccable credentials". The White House even issued a statement on his appointment declaring that he would be leading the charge against the "Deep State".

I suppose you'd probably have to think of Sessions as being part of the "Deep State", as it was his recusal that made Rosenstein be the person who appointed Mueller. I hope I don't have to go into detail for why calling him anti-Trump would be ridiculous.

The whole thing is just beyond silly.

 

[kellyb]

I think it just depends on how you define "deep state". It's essentially impossible to discuss something which has not been defined. It kind of a useless concept in that regard, because everyone using the phrase has a private definition.