Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Crossbow]

All process crimes. Not one stating anything else.
Except Manafort, who wasn't convicted on anything related to Trump.

Do you realize that you are speaking against your own argument?

When Trump when he was running for office he was constantly saying that the 'Trump Administration would be the Law and Order Administration'.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

You know, a lot of community colleges offer excellent Intro to Legal Theory classes.

Well intentioned, but likely a futile suggestion.

I was discussing Evolutionary Theory with a bright person, who nonetheless was trotting really facile arguments against the Theory*. I suggested a community college course in a Evolutionary Biology. He responded by saying there was no point, he’d just sit there like...and crossed his arms, smirked and looked away.

I’m similarly hearing arguments about what the Mueller Report says or doesn’t say - mostly by folks who admittedly have not read it. Main argument: If he had broken any laws, he would have been charged.

Willful ignorance is very, very difficult to argue against.


*Like, “If we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?” And “Scientists have proven there has not been enough time for Evolution to have worked.” And “Mutations can never add information to the genome.”

 

[IsThisTheLife]

What makes you think that a crime MUST have already been committed in order for surveillance to be initiated?

The FBI started a counter-intelligence investigation on Trump's campaign because they received information from one of the Five Eyes co-operating allied foreign intelligence services who were spying on the Russians.

During their own routine "SIGINT" surveillance of The Kremlin and Russian oligarchs, they noticed multiple members of the Trump campaign and other Trump associates (e.g. Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, Don Jr, Ivanka, Jared Kushner, Mike Flynn, George Papadopoulis, Michael Cohen, et al) kept repeatedly popping up. They became concerned about that because non-Russian, non-Government citizens who keep turning up in surveillance on the Russian government almost always turn out to be Russian spies. As the UK is part of "Five Eyes" it was their duty to inform US government intelligence services such as the FBI about what they had observed.

The FBI/CIA would be derelict in their duty to the security of the United States if they had ignored such information.

Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.

GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.

Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.

The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as SIGINT – included Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, a member of the “Five Eyes” spying alliance that also includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said.

The Guardian has been told the FBI and the CIA were slow to appreciate the extensive nature of contacts between Trump’s team and Moscow ahead of the US election. This was in part due to US law that prohibits US agencies from examining the private communications of American citizens without warrants. “They are trained not to do this,” the source stressed.

“It looks like the [US] agencies were asleep,” the source added. “They [the European agencies] were saying: ‘There are contacts going on between people close to Mr Trump and people we believe are Russian intelligence agents. You should be wary of this.’

“The message was: ‘Watch out. There’s something not right here.'”​

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

That's a copy-paste of a reply of yours to me (and probably others) iterating the same fairy-tale.

The only "British intelligence" provided to the FBI was by Christoper Steele, who was well-and-truly ex-MI6 at the time. The "intelligence" was in the form of the "Steele dossier" assembled by he and his company, which was a mass of "unverified" (the word Steele used) information from unnamed sources.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/16/politics/steele-information-dossier/index.html

The obvious question to be asked is; who paid Steele and his firm for their endeavours?

(Obvious it might be, but it never seems to occur to many of the sub-geniuses here.)

It turns out that a substantial chunk of the funds was paid via a law firm firm part-owned by Hillary. IOW, there were at least desultory attempts to hide the paper trail leading back to her and the DNC, and leave some room for hand-waving/plausible deniability.

But then it gets really interesting - it turns out that certain FBI agents and administrators were well aware of all this BEFORE the Steele dossier was used as 'probable cause' to apply for FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign personnel and initiate the Mueller Investigation.

If an official inquiry were made and sworn depositions taken, the people involved would have the choice of admitting all this (goodbye career) or committing perjury - either way it would be beyond embarrassing for Hlllary, the Democrats and the FBI, and an excellent pretext for a long-overdue purge of the agency.

 

[Crossbow]

Well intentioned, but likely a futile suggestion.

I was discussing Evolutionary Theory with a bright person, who nonetheless was trotting really facile arguments against the Theory*. I suggested a community college course in a Evolutionary Biology. He responded by saying there was no point, he’d just sit there like...and crossed his arms, smirked and looked away.

I’m similarly hearing arguments about what the Mueller Report says or doesn’t say - mostly by folks who admittedly have not read it. Main argument: If he had broken any laws, he would have been charged.

Willful ignorance is very, very difficult to argue against.


*Like, “If we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?” And “Scientists have proven there has not been enough time for Evolution to have worked.” And “Mutations can never add information to the genome.”

Well said and quite true.

Trump supporters often remind me of what Lincoln famously said:

"You can fool some of the people all of the time."

 

[smartcooky]

Well intentioned, but likely a futile suggestion.

I was discussing Evolutionary Theory with a bright person, who nonetheless was trotting really facile arguments against the Theory*. I suggested a community college course in a Evolutionary Biology. He responded by saying there was no point, he’d just sit there like...and crossed his arms, smirked and looked away.

I’m similarly hearing arguments about what the Mueller Report says or doesn’t say - mostly by folks who admittedly have not read it. Main argument: If he had broken any laws, he would have been charged.

Willful ignorance is very, very difficult to argue against.


*Like, “If we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?” And “Scientists have proven there has not been enough time for Evolution to have worked.” And “Mutations can never add information to the genome.”

You see, I don't debate these fools in order to change their minds; I know that's a nigh on impossible task. They are so blindly devoted to Dear Leader, and their minds are so full of the dogma and propaganda they get from their right-wing echo-chambers, that there isn't any room left for reason and logic.

No, I debate them for the benefit of the lurkers; those who happen across the debate and might be sitting on the fence. We might be able to turn or convince the fence-sitting lurker, but Trumpistas are a lost cause.

Defeating the Trumpistas' stupid arguments is easy - mere duck soup, they have more holes in them than a family block of Emmental. But defeating them in a way that makes it easy for the bystander to understand, that takes a little more care and attention to detail.

When they run away from a question, or studiously avoid answering it, or make up excuses for not answering it, I take that as a win.

When they hand-wave away evidence, I take that as a win.

When they try to change the subject, I know that my questions are making them uncomfortable, and I take that as a win.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Given that the Nunes investigation has already let to a number of people leaving the FBI (with no charges of any sort), I'm not certain what Barr can do to compel them to testify.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

You see, I don't debate these fools in order to change their minds; I know that's a nigh on impossible task. They are so blindly devoted to Dear Leader, and their minds are so full of the dogma and propaganda they get from their right-wing echo-chambers, that there isn't any room left for reason and logic.

No, I debate them for the benefit of the lurkers; those who happen across the debate and might be sitting on the fence. We might be able to turn or convince the fence-sitting lurker, but Trumpistas are a lost cause.

Defeating the Trumpistas' stupid arguments is easy - mere duck soup, they have more holes in them than a family block of Emmental. But defeating them in a way that makes it easy for the bystander to understand, that takes a little more care and attention to detail.

When they run away from a question, or studiously avoid answering it, or make up excuses for not answering it, I take that as a win.

When they hand-wave away evidence, I take that as a win.

When they try to change the subject, I know that my questions are making them uncomfortable, and I take that as a win.

<cringe>

 

[smartcooky]

<cringe>

And well you might... noob!!

 

[Paul2]

I already know there was no conspiracy between Trump and Russia as per the report.

You still portraying the narrative that Trump is a Russian agent? Really now.

You forget that the Mueller report was limited to criminal activity, and said nothing about counter-intelligence matters.

 

[Paul2]

*Like, “If we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?” And “Scientists have proven there has not been enough time for Evolution to have worked.” And “Mutations can never add information to the genome.”

And, "The Mueller Report completely exonerated the President."

 

[The Shrike]

Given that Trump must be the biggest threat to this situation being allowed to continue for at least a generation, this seems an odd comment.

The cognitive dissonance is strong – especially when it's invited and cultivated.

 

[The Shrike]

"You can fool some of the people all of the time."

The ones who want to be fooled make that insultingly easy.

 

[Belz...]

You forget that the Mueller report was limited to criminal activity, and said nothing about counter-intelligence matters.

In other words, NO COLLUSION!!!!

 

[tanabear]

Including all those indictments, convictions and guilty pleas?

Do you see how brainwashed it sounds to claim the investigation was a fraud?

This takes the brainwashing to another level.

Before you continue down this Trump created fantasy, take the time to read and understand about the hundreds of stolen and leaked emails from the DNC, from John Podesta, the billions (with a B) of fake FaceBook accounts, Russian troll farms and massive echo chambers on social media, Cambridge Analytica theft of FaceBook data base, stolen information from various voter registration agencies, oh, and while you are at it, you might want to read the Mueller report even though it is redacted.

Spouting off your fabricated revelation is not doing anything except repeating the echo for all the little Trumpies to think eureka!

There were zero indictments pertaining to Trump-Russia collusion. Name one person indicted from the Trump campaign for colluding with Russia?

 

[plague311]

There were zero indictments pertaining to Trump-Russia collusion. Name one person indicted from the Trump campaign for colluding with Russia?

Not enough evidence to indict and no evidence at all are two completely different things.

You knew that though...probably.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

That's a copy-paste of a reply of yours to me (and probably others) iterating the same fairy-tale.

The only "British intelligence" provided to the FBI was by Christoper Steele, who was well-and-truly ex-MI6 at the time. The "intelligence" was in the form of the "Steele dossier" assembled by he and his company, which was a mass of "unverified" (the word Steele used) information from unnamed sources.

Emphatically wrong and you are divorced from reality if you believe that.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/16/politics/steele-information-dossier/index.html

The obvious question to be asked is; who paid Steele and his firm for their endeavours?

(Obvious it might be, but it never seems to occur to many of the sub-geniuses here.)

It turns out that a substantial chunk of the funds was paid via a law firm firm part-owned by Hillary. IOW, there were at least desultory attempts to hide the paper trail leading back to her and the DNC, and leave some room for hand-waving/plausible deniability.

We've been over this dozens of times by now, but it never seems to occur to many of the sub-geniuses here to dig any further than "Hillary."

Steele's work was used for opposition research by quite a few Republican primary candidates before it was shopped to Hillary in the run-up to the general election.

You want the fact that you tied it to Hillary to be some kind of ominous portent.

It isn't. It was shopped to Hillary because Hillary was the candidate opposing Trump at the time it was shopped to her. Just the same as it was shopped to Republican candidates when they were opposing him.

All that means is that Christopher Steele is very good at marketing his product to the exact customers who need it exactly when they need it. In this case, it requires a vague sense of awareness of what's happening in the world. I imagine that's a bit of a prerequisite for SIGINT work.

It takes being pre-baked with "Evil Hillary" nonsense to make your entirely bland statements about when and under what circumstances an opposition research document was presented to someone into a "revelatory" development.

But then it gets really interesting - it turns out that certain FBI agents and administrators were well aware of all this BEFORE the Steele dossier was used as 'probable cause' to apply for FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign personnel and initiate the Mueller Investigation.

If an official inquiry were made and sworn depositions taken, the people involved would have the choice of admitting all this (goodbye career) or committing perjury - either way it would be beyond embarrassing for Hlllary, the Democrats and the FBI, and an excellent pretext for a long-overdue purge of the agency.

Yes, I believe the agents will admit they knew Hillary had access to this material. They will do so because there is really nothing in any way whatsoever alarming or concerning about that being true.

 

[Belz...]

The only "British intelligence" provided to the FBI was by Christoper Steele, who was well-and-truly ex-MI6 at the time.

You are misinformed. Perhaps you shouldn't get your information from biased sources that are trying to distract you.

The "intelligence" was in the form of the "Steele dossier" assembled by he and his company, which was a mass of "unverified" (the word Steele used) information from unnamed sources.

Except from the pee-pee tape, pretty much everything in the dossier has been verified.

Wouldn't you rather argue from an informed viewpoint?

The obvious question to be asked is; who paid Steele and his firm for their endeavours?

(Obvious it might be, but it never seems to occur to many of the sub-geniuses here.)

Pretty sure you're a sub-genius yourself.

It turns out that a substantial chunk of the funds was paid via a law firm firm part-owned by Hillary.

Everybody knows that. If you knew what you were talking about, however, you'd know that it's irrelevant.

 

[tanabear]

HBO might pick this up off you but it needs work.

Since this is based on real events it could be documentary.

OTOH, the Trump Russia collusion story is entirely fictional. This confuses many people because it is frequently shown on "news stations" like CNN, MSNBC, ABC et al. However, when you watch these stations you are watching things that are just as made-up as Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad, or even your standard Marvel or DC comic movie. Once people understand that "new stations" are fictional too, intellectual progress can be made. Until then....

 

[The Shrike]

Except from the pee-pee tape, pretty much everything in the dossier has been verified.

When that suggestion first broke I snickered at the thought of it, but realized it's one of those too "eww" to be true things. These days I'm not so sure. We haven't seen it and it hasn't been in any way confirmed. Still, there is nothing our POTUS has demonstrated since to convince me that he'd be above such shenanigans, and the web of corruption surrounding his Russian dealings has, if anything, made me a bit more confident that such a thing actually exists.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

When that suggestion first broke I snickered at the thought of it, but realized it's one of those too "eww" to be true things. These days I'm not so sure. We haven't seen it and it hasn't been in any way confirmed. Still, there is nothing our POTUS has demonstrated since to convince me that he'd be above such shenanigans, and the web of corruption surrounding his Russian dealings has, if anything, made me a bit more confident that such a thing actually exists.

Mueller does reference "tapes" that Russians are trying to keep under wrap.