Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #4451  
Old 05-16-2018, 07:23 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Ah, the cascade of excuses again.

It's a witch hunt.
There was no Russian meddling.
Even if there was Russian meddling, there was no collusion.
Even if there was collusion, it's not illegal.
Even if it's illegal, you can't indict the President.

How do you sleep at night?

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 05-16-2018 at 07:23 PM.
  #4452  
Old 05-16-2018, 07:27 PM
Defensive Indifference Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
How do you sleep at night?
Bourbon and antidepressants for me.
  #4453  
Old 05-16-2018, 07:34 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
CNN is reporting it as legit, and I doubt they would do that unless they had a reason. But there's also this part, which goes beyond your summary:



I assume he means "on criminal charges", not "civil charges".
It is entirely plausible that Giuliani heard Mueller say essentially what Rosenstein has said, and reported Giuliani's (incorrect) take. I wouldn't put a ton of weight on it.
  #4454  
Old 05-16-2018, 07:34 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 6,434
Quote:
How do you sleep at night?
On top of a large pile of cash with lots of beautiful ladies[/Rwolfcastle]

Last edited by snfaulkner; 05-16-2018 at 07:36 PM.
  #4455  
Old 05-16-2018, 08:09 PM
Fiveyearlurker Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
CNN is reporting it as legit, and I doubt they would do that unless they had a reason. But there's also this part, which goes beyond your summary:



I assume he means "on criminal charges", not "civil charges".
CNN is reporting as legit that Giuliani has claimed that Mueller said this. I don't see anywhere in that article that they have confirmed that Mueller has actually said this.
  #4456  
Old 05-16-2018, 08:11 PM
Fiveyearlurker Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,662
Interesting article. The person who leaked the Cohen information did so because files are missing from the government database:

Seven former government officials and other experts familiar with the Treasury Department’s FinCEN database expressed varying levels of concern about the missing reports. Some speculated that FinCEN may have restricted access to the reports due to the sensitivity of their content, which they said would be nearly unprecedented. One called the possibility “explosive.” A record-retention policy on FinCEN’s Web site notes that false documents or those “deemed highly sensitive” and “requiring strict limitations on access” may be transferred out of its master file. Nevertheless, a former prosecutor who spent years working with the FinCEN database said that she knew of no mechanism for restricting access to SARs. She speculated that FinCEN may have taken the extraordinary step of restricting access “because of the highly sensitive nature of a potential investigation. It may be that someone reached out to FinCEN to ask to limit disclosure of certain SARs related to an investigation, whether it was the special counsel or the Southern District of New York.” (The special counsel, Robert Mueller, is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. The Southern District is investigating Cohen, and the F.B.I. raided his office and hotel room last month.)

Whatever the explanation for the missing reports, the appearance that some, but not all, had been removed or restricted troubled the official who released the report last week. “Why just those two missing?” the official, who feared that the contents of those two reports might be permanently withheld, said. “That’s what alarms me the most.”
  #4457  
Old 05-16-2018, 08:27 PM
Fiveyearlurker Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
CNN is reporting as legit that Giuliani has claimed that Mueller said this. I don't see anywhere in that article that they have confirmed that Mueller has actually said this.
Robert Costa of CNN reporting on twitter that Giuliani is walking back his statement and stating that Mueller did not state this, but a member of the special council called him a few days after they met and mentioned it. When asked which member, Giuliani said he'd get back to them.

My money is on George Glass.
  #4458  
Old 05-16-2018, 08:37 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 20,162
Giuliani is walking back so many statements that he may develop a new dance move.
  #4459  
Old 05-16-2018, 08:43 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Interesting article. The person who leaked the Cohen information did so because files are missing from the government database:

Seven former government officials and other experts familiar with the Treasury Department’s FinCEN database expressed varying levels of concern about the missing reports. Some speculated that FinCEN may have restricted access to the reports due to the sensitivity of their content, which they said would be nearly unprecedented. One called the possibility “explosive.” A record-retention policy on FinCEN’s Web site notes that false documents or those “deemed highly sensitive” and “requiring strict limitations on access” may be transferred out of its master file. Nevertheless, a former prosecutor who spent years working with the FinCEN database said that she knew of no mechanism for restricting access to SARs. She speculated that FinCEN may have taken the extraordinary step of restricting access “because of the highly sensitive nature of a potential investigation. It may be that someone reached out to FinCEN to ask to limit disclosure of certain SARs related to an investigation, whether it was the special counsel or the Southern District of New York.” (The special counsel, Robert Mueller, is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. The Southern District is investigating Cohen, and the F.B.I. raided his office and hotel room last month.)

Whatever the explanation for the missing reports, the appearance that some, but not all, had been removed or restricted troubled the official who released the report last week. “Why just those two missing?” the official, who feared that the contents of those two reports might be permanently withheld, said. “That’s what alarms me the most.”
You have a penchant for understatement, Fiveyearlurker. Interesting for sure.

If access was restricted at the request of law enforcement, I would expect a terse statement indicating that this is the situation. Far more sinister is the implication that the SARs were removed at the request of... others.
  #4460  
Old 05-16-2018, 08:45 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
CNN is reporting as legit that Giuliani has claimed that Mueller said this. I don't see anywhere in that article that they have confirmed that Mueller has actually said this.
You're ignoring the parts of the article that are not about Giuliani. I already quoted one, and here's another:

Quote:
The inability to indict a sitting president has been the position of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department since the Nixon administration and reaffirmed in the Clinton administration, but it has never been tested in court.
  #4461  
Old 05-16-2018, 08:47 PM
simster simster is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Robert Costa of CNN reporting on twitter that Giuliani is walking back his statement and stating that Mueller did not state this, but a member of the special council called him a few days after they met and mentioned it. When asked which member, Giuliani said he'd get back to them.

My money is on George Glass.
Giuliani's entire role is to spread disinformation - a soundbite for the followers that they can hold on to and then a walk back that they will never hear.
  #4462  
Old 05-16-2018, 08:55 PM
Fiveyearlurker Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
You're ignoring the parts of the article that are not about Giuliani. I already quoted one, and here's another:
I'm not ignoring anything. The entire article is premised on Giuliani's statement about Mueller's statement which turned out to not have happened.
  #4463  
Old 05-16-2018, 09:31 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 23,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Well now that you put it that way, that changes everything.
There's never been a waste of time or a bad meeting in any broad effort made by a group of more than 2 people, right? Your "conclusion" is utterly laughable, unsupported by facts and directly contradicted by other facts.
  #4464  
Old 05-16-2018, 09:35 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 23,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Not surprising but Mueller said he cannot indict Trump

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/polit...ent/index.html
From the article:
Quote:
Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has informed President Donald Trump's attorneys that they have concluded that they cannot indict a sitting president, according to the President's lawyer.

"All they get to do is write a report," Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told CNN. "They can't indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling, they acknowledged that to us."
Every time I read this, I wonder the same thing:

If the POTUS is impeached successfully and removed from office, couldn't charges be brought then? Surely the crime doesn't go away?

Or if his term expires without re-election?

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 05-16-2018 at 09:35 PM.
  #4465  
Old 05-16-2018, 09:48 PM
simster simster is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
From the article:Every time I read this, I wonder the same thing:

If the POTUS is impeached successfully and removed from office, couldn't charges be brought then? Surely the crime doesn't go away?

Or if his term expires without re-election?
Not sure if this is an update to the article or what - but the article goes on to state this -

Quote:
The legal team put the question of indictment directly to Mueller -- and they were not surprised by his answer -- as part of a strategy to deal with the issue of a subpoena to the President should he decide not to testify, according to a source familiar with the Trump legal team's thinking.
The reason it's important, this source said, is that under their view of the law the special counsel's team would have to show they need the President's testimony to investigate a crime of great significance. The President's team would then argue that if you can't indict the President for a charge like obstruction, then there is "no crime to justify the subpoena."
Because inability to indict negates the crime - this 'team' is beyond absurd.
  #4466  
Old 05-16-2018, 10:12 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 58,432
Isn't that how the whole "unindicted co-conspirator" legal euphemism came about?
  #4467  
Old 05-16-2018, 10:35 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,060
The fact that Mueller has come to the conclusion that he can't indict a sitting president means that that conversation has come up among him and his staff. Is that a conversation that Mueller and his team would have if there wasn't evidence Trump was involved in criminal activity? I mean CNN did say this: "That conclusion is likely based on longstanding Justice Department guidelines. It is not about any assessment of the evidence Mueller's team has compiled." Ah, so Mueller is just tossing that out to Trump's legal team for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

But why would Bob Mueller inform Trump's attorneys that they can't indict a sitting president if there weren't a real reason for them to do so? You telling me that Bob Mueller is just off-handedly informing Ty Cobb et al of longstanding, yet completely irrelevant, Justice Department guidelines? Did Mueller also inform them of the guideline that all food in the DoJ fridge needs to be labeled with a name and date or it'll be tossed out every Friday?

No one informed Obama's attorneys that a sitting president can't be indicted. Just sayin.
  #4468  
Old 05-16-2018, 11:23 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Not surprising but Mueller said he cannot indict Trump

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/polit...ent/index.html
...No, Trump's Lawyer said that Mueller said that. And what have we learned about the Trump administration?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Robert Costa of CNN reporting on twitter that Giuliani is walking back his statement and stating that Mueller did not state this, but a member of the special council called him a few days after they met and mentioned it. When asked which member, Giuliani said he'd get back to them.

My money is on George Glass.
Oh right. Trust nobody.
  #4469  
Old 05-17-2018, 01:16 AM
DWMarch DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
But why would Bob Mueller inform Trump's attorneys that they can't indict a sitting president if there weren't a real reason for them to do so? You telling me that Bob Mueller is just off-handedly informing Ty Cobb et al of longstanding, yet completely irrelevant, Justice Department guidelines? Did Mueller also inform them of the guideline that all food in the DoJ fridge needs to be labeled with a name and date or it'll be tossed out every Friday?

No one informed Obama's attorneys that a sitting president can't be indicted. Just sayin.
As someone who works in an office where the fridge is aggressively cleaned every Friday, thank you for the laugh!

Regarding the will they/won't they on the indictment issue, I am reminded of the words of Captain Sullenberger as portrayed by Tom Hanks: Everything is unprecedented until it happens for the first time. To exaggerate for effect, do we suppose that if Trump really did shoot someone dead in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue he would not be indicted for that?
  #4470  
Old 05-17-2018, 03:32 AM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
To exaggerate for effect, do we suppose that if Trump really did shoot someone dead in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue he would not be indicted for that?
He certainly wouldn't be impeached.
  #4471  
Old 05-17-2018, 04:12 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 21,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster View Post
Because inability to indict negates the crime - this 'team' is beyond absurd.
So if a crime happens in a forest and no one is there to witness it, does it result in an indictment? No wait, if a crime is committed in a forest and no one is indicted... meh, I need to work on this.
  #4472  
Old 05-17-2018, 04:40 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,400
I rather doubt anyone on Mueller's team told Giuliani that they were not going to indict L'il Donnie. If Giuliani came up to me soaking wet and told me it was raining, I'd look outside before getting my umbrella. Someday his picture will be in the dictionary next to the word "unhinged".

I think Mueller is appalled by the unprecedented corruption in this administration and its blatant disregard for the law. It is true that a sitting president has never been indicted, but it is by no means clear that one cannot be. If ever a situation demanded it, it would be this one.
  #4473  
Old 05-17-2018, 05:40 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,036
At most that's an opinion from the Justice Department, not a ruling from the Supreme Court, and isn't binding on states either.
  #4474  
Old 05-17-2018, 08:30 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I rather doubt anyone on Mueller's team told Giuliani that they were not going to indict L'il Donnie. If Giuliani came up to me soaking wet and told me it was raining, I'd look outside before getting my umbrella. Someday his picture will be in the dictionary next to the word "unhinged".
Agreed (emphasis added).

Quote:
I think Mueller is appalled by the unprecedented corruption in this administration and its blatant disregard for the law. It is true that a sitting president has never been indicted, but it is by no means clear that one cannot be. If ever a situation demanded it, it would be this one.
Talk about your constitutional crisis. What happens when the president refuses to accept the indictment? Impeachment certainly has its limitations, but that seems like the way to go. Impeach, and then indict.

Last edited by John Mace; 05-17-2018 at 08:31 AM.
  #4475  
Old 05-17-2018, 08:39 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Talk about your constitutional crisis. What happens when the president refuses to accept the indictment? Impeachment certainly has its limitations, but that seems like the way to go. Impeach, and then indict.
Missed the edit window. Impeach, remove from office, and then indict. If you can't do that, the next election isn't that far away.
  #4476  
Old 05-17-2018, 08:49 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
They were gotten by hacking into the DNC servers, weren't they? I was under the impression that hacking was illegal.
But the point was that hacking the DNC servers doesn't appear to have been discussed at this meeting.

[There seems to be some confusion here. In case you might be misconstruing my words, when I wrote "possibly DNC emails, or possibly some other form of coordination of a much more serious nature", I did not mean "possibly DNC emails, or possibly some other form of coordination of a much more serious nature [than DNC emails]". Rather, "possibly DNC emails, or possibly some other form of coordination [which is also] of a much more serious nature [than DTjr trying to get opposition research from Russian government-connected sources]".]
  #4477  
Old 05-17-2018, 08:59 AM
Defensive Indifference Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,240
Here's a really interesting graphic from Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, a contributor to 538 and other publications. She lays out the timelines and number of indictments generated by all special prosecutors going back to Watergate. It really shows how quickly the Mueller investigation has been moving. Mueller has gotten more indictments in the first year of any special prosecution since Watergate. The other thing this graphic shows is how looooong these things usually take. Watergate dragged on for four years, and Whitewater for seven! The Henry Cisneros investigation went on more than eight years, the last five of which turned up no indictments. The investigation into the Valerie Plame leak took three years, and that was nowhere near as complicated as the Mueller investigation. I want the investigation to be wrapped up soon, too, because I want Trump drummed out of office with all speed. But it's likely to take fucking years.
  #4478  
Old 05-17-2018, 08:59 AM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
But the point was that hacking the DNC servers doesn't appear to have been discussed at this meeting.
This depends on the assumption that Papadopoulos didn't tell the campaign about the hack, doesn't it? He knew well before June 9.
  #4479  
Old 05-17-2018, 09:15 AM
YamatoTwinkie YamatoTwinkie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
Ah, the cascade of excuses again.

It's a witch hunt.
There was no Russian meddling.
Even if there was Russian meddling, there was no collusion.
Even if there was collusion, it's not illegal.
Even if it's illegal, you can't indict the President.
Even if it's illegal, how dare you slip an imbedded (sic) informant into my campaign to figure it out!
  #4480  
Old 05-17-2018, 09:52 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
To exaggerate for effect, do we suppose that if Trump really did shoot someone dead in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue he would not be indicted for that?
I think that's how he is planning on kicking off his 2024 campaign.
  #4481  
Old 05-17-2018, 09:58 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I think that's how he is planning on kicking off his 2024 campaign.
There will be no 2024 campaign. President-For-Life Trump doesn't need no stinkin' campaign!!
  #4482  
Old 05-17-2018, 10:06 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
This depends on the assumption that Papadopoulos didn't tell the campaign about the hack, doesn't it?
No. What I've been saying here is that based on the transcripts of the testimonies just released, as well as all other available evidence, the hacking was not discussed (or even expected to be discussed). This based on both the fact that all testimonies were consistent on that point, as well as the fact that all testimonies were also consistent that there was nothing of any consequence discussed at that meeting, despite expectations.

You want to continue to speculate that it's all a cleverly coordinated campaign of deception, that's fine. But my point was that this has not panned out to date, and that the statement of the Democratic minority seems to indicate some acknowledgment of that, as they move on to speculation on other matters.
  #4483  
Old 05-17-2018, 10:29 AM
enipla enipla is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 12,638
From the link -

Giuliani: Mueller's team told Trump's lawyers they can't indict a president

BWAHAHAHHAHA. This... this is according to Trumps lawyers... BWAAAHAHAHHAH. The whole administration are as thick as thieves. ALL they do is lie and let their supporters lap it up.

Hey Rudy, as my Mom always said "Can't never tried".
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #4484  
Old 05-17-2018, 10:34 AM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
No. What I've been saying here is that based on the transcripts of the testimonies just released, as well as all other available evidence, the hacking was not discussed (or even expected to be discussed). This based on both the fact that all testimonies were consistent on that point, as well as the fact that all testimonies were also consistent that there was nothing of any consequence discussed at that meeting, despite expectations.
Because...Li'l Donnie's word is so trustworthy?

Quote:
You want to continue to speculate that it's all a cleverly coordinated campaign of deception, that's fine. But my point was that this has not panned out to date, and that the statement of the Democratic minority seems to indicate some acknowledgment of that, as they move on to speculation on other matters.
Cleverly coordinated? By the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight? Hahahahahaha...

Once again, to bring out the hackneyed old saw that also happens to be true, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...let alone what Mueller has which no one but his team knows about.
  #4485  
Old 05-17-2018, 10:45 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Missed the edit window. Impeach, remove from office, and then indict. If you can't do that, the next election isn't that far away.
Oh, I'm so glad you caught that.
  #4486  
Old 05-17-2018, 11:06 AM
DigitalC DigitalC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 10,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard View Post
Here's a really interesting graphic from Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, a contributor to 538 and other publications. She lays out the timelines and number of indictments generated by all special prosecutors going back to Watergate. It really shows how quickly the Mueller investigation has been moving. Mueller has gotten more indictments in the first year of any special prosecution since Watergate. The other thing this graphic shows is how looooong these things usually take. Watergate dragged on for four years, and Whitewater for seven! The Henry Cisneros investigation went on more than eight years, the last five of which turned up no indictments. The investigation into the Valerie Plame leak took three years, and that was nowhere near as complicated as the Mueller investigation. I want the investigation to be wrapped up soon, too, because I want Trump drummed out of office with all speed. But it's likely to take fucking years.
This investigation is going fast because everyone involved is so goddamn incompetent. Covering their tracks because they might some day be held accountable was not something they ever even considered.
  #4487  
Old 05-17-2018, 11:17 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,656
It's hard to compare this to other special prosecutors, as this is probably the most wide-ranging special prosecutor investigation in history, and affords much more opportunities for indictments.

Also, most of the indictments to date are of 13 Russians that are not expected to actually be prosecuted, and are kind of like freebies for the prosecution (in terms of preparation effort).
  #4488  
Old 05-17-2018, 11:34 AM
drad dog's Avatar
drad dog drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
It's hard to compare this to other special prosecutors, as this is probably the most wide-ranging special prosecutor investigation in history, and affords much more opportunities for indictments.

Also, most of the indictments to date are of 13 Russians that are not expected to actually be prosecuted, and are kind of like freebies for the prosecution (in terms of preparation effort).
I get your point: We should be glad that there are important things being investigated and there is no need for "perjury about sex" issues in this iteration of presidential reckoning?
  #4489  
Old 05-17-2018, 11:35 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,656
If you insist ...
  #4490  
Old 05-17-2018, 11:36 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalC View Post
This investigation is going fast because everyone involved is so goddamn incompetent. Covering their tracks because they might some day be held accountable was not something they ever even considered.
I don't think that they actually realized that they were breaking laws as they were doing so. If anything, they thought it was little regulatory rules that may impose a nominal fine, as with their usual real estate shenanigans.

If you don't know the rules to chess, then absent a referee who can enforce rules compliance, those who know the game the least have the most advantage.
  #4491  
Old 05-17-2018, 11:47 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I don't think that they actually realized that they were breaking laws as they were doing so. If anything, they thought it was little regulatory rules that may impose a nominal fine, as with their usual real estate shenanigans.

If you don't know the rules to chess, then absent a referee who can enforce rules compliance, those who know the game the least have the most advantage.
If you're going to enter a chess tournament, you need to acquaint yourself with the rules first. If you don't, sucks to be you, because you're going down and you ain't getting any sympathy from me!

I don't know if these guys were ignorant or simply didn't care about following the rules. They wanted to play in the big leagues (hah!) and now they are seeing what can happen if you're not careful. Boo-hoo.

Last edited by John Mace; 05-17-2018 at 11:49 AM.
  #4492  
Old 05-17-2018, 12:16 PM
simster simster is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
I get your point: We should be glad that there are important things being investigated and there is no need for "perjury about sex" issues in this iteration of presidential reckoning?
See - I think we're going to get that as well - Trump really likes outdoing the Clinton's.
  #4493  
Old 05-17-2018, 02:51 PM
Robot Arm Robot Arm is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 22,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
[There seems to be some confusion here. In case you might be misconstruing my words, when I wrote "possibly DNC emails, or possibly some other form of coordination of a much more serious nature", I did not mean "possibly DNC emails, or possibly some other form of coordination of a much more serious nature [than DNC emails]". Rather, "possibly DNC emails, or possibly some other form of coordination [which is also] of a much more serious nature [than DTjr trying to get opposition research from Russian government-connected sources]".]
I did read it the first way. But even if I take the second meaning, the question still stands. What would be "much more serious" than trying to get opposition research from Russian government-connected sources? Would paying for it be more serious? Accepting it for free? How about inserting a plank about Ukraine in the GOP platform?
  #4494  
Old 05-17-2018, 03:05 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
I did read it the first way. But even if I take the second meaning, the question still stands. What would be "much more serious" than trying to get opposition research from Russian government-connected sources?
Participating in the hacking of DNC emails would be much more serious (not to mention hacking voting systems). Also, participating with Russian efforts to disseminate disinformation in the US would be much more serious than trying to get legitimate leads about Clinton shady funding from Russian government-connected sources.
Quote:
How about inserting a plank about Ukraine in the GOP platform?
That too. So if there's any indication that inserting a plank about Ukraine as part of a deal with the Russians was discussed at this meeting, then you're onto something. But again, all indications beyond sheer speculation and wishful thinking is that nothing of any consequence was done at this meeting.
  #4495  
Old 05-17-2018, 03:14 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
No. What I've been saying here is that based on the transcripts of the testimonies just released, as well as all other available evidence, the hacking was not discussed (or even expected to be discussed). This based on both the fact that all testimonies were consistent on that point, as well as the fact that all testimonies were also consistent that there was nothing of any consequence discussed at that meeting, despite expectations.
You are saying that Donald Trump Jr. didn't expect to discuss hacked emails.

I am saying that this assumption only makes sense if he did not connect the "Russia has dirt" to Papadopoulos's knowledge that the dirt was hacked emails. That's all.

That doesn't involve any "cleverly coordinated campaign of deception."
  #4496  
Old 05-17-2018, 03:50 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
You are saying that Donald Trump Jr. didn't expect to discuss hacked emails.

I am saying that this assumption only makes sense if he did not connect the "Russia has dirt" to Papadopoulos's knowledge that the dirt was hacked emails. That's all.

That doesn't involve any "cleverly coordinated campaign of deception."
If I were DTjr and I was offered "official documents and information" from someone connected to the Russian government, which purported to "incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia", my assumption would be that these were Russian government documents that the person had acquired via their government connections, and not hacked DNC emails.

But even if we were to speculate that DTjr somehow assumed that this was related to hacked emails, that only relates to what his expectations were going into the meeting. The point is that once that meeting started it seems to be agreed upon by all participants (Americans, Russians, translator) that nothing was said about hacked emails, and there was just some vague stuff about Russian funding. So unless there was a "cleverly coordinated campaign of deception" in which all participants coordinated their story on this point (though they were inconsistent in some other more minor areas) then it seems unlikely that the topic actually came up.
  #4497  
Old 05-17-2018, 04:06 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 58,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
...my assumption would be that these were Russian government documents that the person had acquired via their government connections, and not hacked DNC emails....
Unless, of course, that government connection got that info by way of the hacked DNC emails. That is so fantastic we may dismiss it out of hand. Wave, wave...
  #4498  
Old 05-17-2018, 04:10 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,656
I would have thought this was obvious, and I underlined it just in case it wasn't, but if you need it spelled out further: the hacked DNC emails wouldn't tend to be "official documents" and not related to Russia specifically. OTOH, documents that the Russian government had legitimately due to them being the government would be both of these.

Last edited by Fotheringay-Phipps; 05-17-2018 at 04:10 PM.
  #4499  
Old 05-17-2018, 04:32 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 2,840
Five days after the Trump Tower meeting Rob Goldstone sent Ike Kaveladze an email with a screen cap of this CNN article... Russian hackers stole Dems' Trump files, firm says.

Here's the body of Goldstone's email...
Quote:
Top story right now — seems eerily weird based on our Trump meeting last week with the Russian lawyers etc.
Based on this evidence, it seems incredibly likely that the DNC hack came up at the meeting at least obliquely.
  #4500  
Old 05-17-2018, 05:47 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,656
All it means is that they met some Russians who promised info and here's an article about Russians having info. Interesting that in this case it was actually the Russians getting damaging info about Trump himself. (Though you could argue it was of value to Trump to know what the Democrats had on him.)

On a related note, see an email from Ike Kaveladze on that same day (June 14), stating "meeting was boring. The Russians did not have any bad info in [sic] Hillary". (link, page 15).

[Of possible minor interest: the recipient's name is redacted, but I belief the time stamps of the email exchange indicates that this person's time zone was 10 hours ahead of Kaveladze.]

Last edited by Fotheringay-Phipps; 05-17-2018 at 05:47 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017