US Officially Blames Russia

[willhaven]

While I applaud your efforts to counter the many lies Sunmaster and others have haunted this forum with, this isn't the thread for it. Clinton's emails is a closed chapter. This thread is about Trump's campaign colluding with a hostile foreign power to grasp power in the US. Don't let the Trump apologists change the subject.

Apparently not even the FBI can put a stop to the scandalmongering.

But, yeah, it's hard not to dive in when you see the same debunked falsehoods trotted out for years.

 

[sunmaster14]

Interesting how sunmaster14 dismisses the FBI investigation of Manafort because they couldn't get a wiretap warrant in their still-ongoing investigation, but is totally convinced Clinton is guilty as hell despite the FBI clearing her.

I'm not dismissing anything. I'm pointing out that the headline to the article you linked is exaggerated and intended to gin up controversy and create the appearance of more smoke than there really is.

 

[elgarak]

Assuming Trump would give a clear order I can't see the CIA etc refuse him.
But for Trump, ignorance is bliss: he wouldn't want to burden his mind with intelligence.

Um. No.

The CIA's Oath of Office is "to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic", same as the President's. They can, and likely will, it seems, refuse an order from a person that they see as a domestic enemy of the Constitution.

 

[sunmaster14]

Um. No.

The CIA's Oath of Office is "to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic", same as the President's. They can, and likely will, it seems, refuse an order from a person that they see as a domestic enemy of the Constitution.

That's silly. If they think the President is an enemy of the US, they can resign and advocate for his impeachment. Otherwise, they have a duty to obey a lawful order from him. It is not their place to determine that the President of the US is an enemy of the US.

 

[A'isha]

That is the only mention of a criminal investigation in that article (which is the only one linked by the article you linked. How is it fair to characterize that as a criminal investigation into Manafort's work?

Did you even read the part of the article from today that you quoted?

The agency’s investigation of Mr. Manafort began last spring as an outgrowth of a criminal investigation into his work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine and for the country’s former president, Viktor F. Yanukovych. It has focused on why he was in such close contact with Russian and Ukrainian intelligence officials.

That's why the FBI was wanting to wiretap his communications with Ukrainian officials.

And, contrary to your assertion that this is some kind of frame-up by the New York Times and CNN in the wake of the Flynn resignation, news organizations (real news organizations, not Breitbart) were reporting within days of Trump's inauguration on the investigation into the ties that multiple people in the Trump camp had with Russia. You know, just like the NYT article you pooh-poohed says.

The US intelligence community has opened investigations into several members of President Donald Trump's inner circle over the past year, focusing on the advisers' potential ties to Russian government officials throughout Trump's presidential campaign and beyond.

The investigations appear to have begun as early as last spring, when the CIA established a US counterintelligence task force to investigate whether the Trump campaign received funds from Russia. The task force consisted of the FBI, the Treasury and Justice departments, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency.

The BBC first reported on the existence of the investigation earlier this month, which McClatchy also reported was still ongoing. The investigation sought, among other things, to determine who financed the hacks on the Democratic National Committee and of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, and whether any of Trump's associates served as middlemen between his campaign and the Kremlin.

John Brennan, the former director of the CIA, also received a recording of a conversation last year from one of the Baltic states' intelligence agencies suggesting that money from the Kremlin had gone to the Trump campaign, the BBC reported.

One night before Trump's inauguration, The New York Times reported that intercepted communications were part of the investigation into ties between Russia and people close to Trump, but the report said it was "not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump's campaign, or Mr. Trump himself."

The BBC report indicated that the task force was granted a warrant by a judge in the FISA court — named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — on October 15 to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks that could have been implicated in any money transfer. Trump was not named in the warrant, but three of his associates were the subject of the inquiry.

 

[Mumbles]

Um. No.

The CIA's Oath of Office is "to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic", same as the President's. They can, and likely will, it seems, refuse an order from a person that they see as a domestic enemy of the Constitution.

Don't assume that.

This may go badly. i don't like assuming the FBI is an enemy, but for now, it's best to think they are.

 

[uke2se]

And I really don't want to rehash how not being charged with a crime is different from being factually innocent, but that's a lie that the left just can't drop.

What it is is evidence that there was no crime to be prosecuted. You know, like the FBI said.

Speaking of lies, how about that Trump feller and his Russia shenanigans?

 

[elgarak]

Did you even read the part of the article from today that you quoted?



That's why the FBI was wanting to wiretap his communications with Ukrainian officials.

And, contrary to your assertion that this is some kind of frame-up by the New York Times and CNN in the wake of the Flynn resignation, news organizations (real news organizations, not Breitbart) were reporting within days of Trump's inauguration on the investigation into the ties that multiple people in the Trump camp had with Russia. You know, just like the NYT article you pooh-poohed says.

I expect transcripts and recordings of such calls or meetings to be leaked within the next few days, if nothing else happens.

 

[Newtons Bit]

What it is is evidence that there was no crime to be prosecuted. You know, like the FBI said.

Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would take the case, not that there hadn't been a crime committed. There's a difference.

Speaking of lies, how about that Trump feller and his Russia shenanigans?

Sunday dinner with my parents will probably involve me saying "I told you so" quite a bit to my dad. He just couldn't get his head around the fact that Manafort and Flynn were both closely aligned with Russia during the campaign and pre-inauguration days.

 

[uke2se]

Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would take the case, not that there hadn't been a crime committed. There's a difference.

Perhaps. That they wouldn't prosecute Clinton is evidence that she wasn't the one who commited any crimes though.

Sunday dinner with my parents will probably involve me saying "I told you so" quite a bit to my dad. He just couldn't get his head around the fact that Manafort and Flynn were both closely aligned with Russia during the campaign and pre-inauguration days.

If you'd all have voted Clinton, maybe the world wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[A'isha]

More leftist libs attacking Dear Leader's totally unproblematic handling of intelligence materials. Sad!

House oversight committee chairman Jason Chaffetz is pressing White House officials for details on why President Donald Trump conducted some of his response to a North Korean missile test in a public dining room at his Mar-a-Lago club.

In a letter to White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, Chaffetz requested answers about security protocols at Mar-a-Lago; the details of potentially sensitive documents that Trump and his aides perused in the presence of diners and waitstaff; and whether any sensitive material was discussed in public. The Utah Republican is also seeking information about whether guests are vetted to "ensure that they are not foreign agents or spies on behalf of a foreign government."

 

[Belz...]

Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would take the case, not that there hadn't been a crime committed. There's a difference.

If there's not enough evidence to convict, what should a reasonable person conclude?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Perhaps. That they wouldn't prosecute Clinton is evidence that she wasn't the one who commited any crimes though.

OJ uses the same logic.

If you'd all have voted Clinton, maybe the world wouldn't be in this mess.

No one in my immediate family voted for Trump and our state went for Clinton. Blame someone else for the failings of your nominee.

 

[Newtons Bit]

If there's not enough evidence to convict, what should a reasonable person conclude?

A reasonable person would conclude that their wasn't enough evidence to convict, because our justice system has a high bar that must be overcome, not that the person accused is automatically innocent of all wrong-doing.

There are many posters here who are adamant that George Zimmerman committed murder/manslaughter against Trayvon Martin even though GZ was acquitted. OJ Simpson was acquitted for the murder of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, should we conclude that he is factually innocent? As people, we're allowed to make judgements with lower levels of certainty than 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

 

[Belz...]

A reasonable person would conclude that their wasn't enough evidence to convict, because our justice system has a high bar that must be overcome, not that the person accused is automatically innocent of all wrong-doing.

Yes but that's a nice way to avoid the actual answer: a reasonable person wouldn't conclude that the accused is guilty.

 

[sunmaster14]

Yes but that's a nice way to avoid the actual answer: a reasonable person wouldn't conclude that the accused is guilty.

A reasonable person looks at the evidence for guidance, not at an obviously politically constrained prosecutorial decision.

 

[Distracted1]

A reasonable person would conclude that their wasn't enough evidence to convict, because our justice system has a high bar that must be overcome, not that the person accused is automatically innocent of all wrong-doing.

There are many posters here who are adamant that George Zimmerman committed murder/manslaughter against Trayvon Martin even though GZ was acquitted. OJ Simpson was acquitted for the murder of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, should we conclude that he is factually innocent? As people, we're allowed to make judgements with lower levels of certainty than 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

In each of your cited examples, although convictions were not achieved charges were still brought. Indicating that they had more evidence to support a conviction than not- at least in the eyes of the prosecutor.
I find it hard to accept that Clinton would not have been charged if as much evidence to support a conviction existed against her as did in your examples. Ergo, bad analogy.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yes but that's a nice way to avoid the actual answer: a reasonable person wouldn't conclude that the accused is guilty.

Drop the straw man. I didn't say anything about doing anything other than looking at the evidence available. You're artificially constraining the question.

 

[Newtons Bit]

In each of your cited examples, although convictions were not achieved charges were still brought. Indicating that they had more evidence to support a conviction than not- at least in the eyes of the prosecutor.
I find it hard to accept that Clinton would not have been charged if as much evidence to support a conviction existed against her as did in your examples. Ergo, bad analogy.

All analogies fall apart at some point. But quite frankly, I'm really surprised that so many people here have a hard time discerning the difference between factually innocent and "beyond a reasonable doubt" (especially coupled with one of the most popular and high profile politicians in the entire world).

If you want a better analogy, look no further than the Dear Colleague letter that the Dept of Ed OCR sent out on campus rape. The Obama administration was so convinced that campus rapists were getting away with the crime that they demanded colleges erode due process protections for those accused of serious crimes.

Everyone makes discernments beyond reasonable doubt. It's not some sort of right wing conspiracy.

 

[Belz...]

Drop the straw man.

Gee, there's another poster who thinks I can strawman myself.

I didn't say anything about doing anything other than looking at the evidence available.

What a strange thing to say, since what I said is this:

If there's not enough evidence to convict, what should a reasonable person conclude?

Emphasis added. We're BOTH talking about the evidence available.