Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gcomeau and 3 guests

EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by smr   » Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:16 pm

smr
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1443
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:18 pm

1) Their was NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION!
Why?
Their is no such thing in US law as Collusion.
Ok. What would you charge Trump under? Conspiracy!
Did Trump or his Campaign commit Conspiracy?
A resounding "No!"

So, that concludes Part 1. Now Part 2 their is going to have wide range of opinions on Obstruction.

1) No charges of conspiracy (collusion) means no charges of obstruction.

2) Another legal theory, their can not be any charges of Obstruction. If the charges violate a person's rights and/or violate the Presidential Powers in pursuit of his Duties, No charges can be filed on Obstruction.

3) Third Legal Theory, their could be charges of obstruction without an underlying charge. This legal theory would have been the hardest standard to meet because this is untried legal theory.

Barr ruled on 1 and 2.

Mueller's team was divided. Some favored 1 and 2. Others favored 3. If Congress decides to Impeach Trump, Part 2 was written as a roadmap for the Demoncrats if they choose the road of impeachment.

So, this charge of Obstruction comes down to a person's bias and political beliefs because their are competing legal theories.

Happy Daryl!






Daryl wrote:Reading this page of comments back and forth it becomes obvious that there are several mature and intelligent people doing open minded research, and one arguing with them by acting like a spoilt 4 year old. Smr, you can't just look at all of that and dismiss it with no logical mental process of rebuttal.
My take on it is that at some stage in the future Trump won't be President and the Democrats will control both houses. At that point he is toast for obstruction of justice.
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by Daryl   » Sun Apr 21, 2019 5:07 am

Daryl
Admiral

Posts: 2895
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Sorry to be a grammar nazi, but "Their" is a third person possessive pronoun. You probably meant to use "There" as in "over there" or "there is".

I'm far from an expert on US law, but I would assume that setting up a very expensive inquiry to determine among other things that there is or is not collusion would imply that it is recognised under your law. Certainly is in ours.

smr wrote:1) Their was NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION!
Why?
Their is no such thing in US law as Collusion.
Ok. What would you charge Trump under? Conspiracy!
Did Trump or his Campaign commit Conspiracy?
A resounding "No!"

So, that concludes Part 1. Now Part 2 their is going to have wide range of opinions on Obstruction.

1) No charges of conspiracy (collusion) means no charges of obstruction.

2) Another legal theory, their can not be any charges of Obstruction. If the charges violate a person's rights and/or violate the Presidential Powers in pursuit of his Duties, No charges can be filed on Obstruction.

3) Third Legal Theory, their could be charges of obstruction without an underlying charge. This legal theory would have been the hardest standard to meet because this is untried legal theory.

Barr ruled on 1 and 2.

Mueller's team was divided. Some favored 1 and 2. Others favored 3. If Congress decides to Impeach Trump, Part 2 was written as a roadmap for the Demoncrats if they choose the road of impeachment.

So, this charge of Obstruction comes down to a person's bias and political beliefs because their are competing legal theories.

Happy Daryl!






Daryl wrote:Reading this page of comments back and forth it becomes obvious that there are several mature and intelligent people doing open minded research, and one arguing with them by acting like a spoilt 4 year old. Smr, you can't just look at all of that and dismiss it with no logical mental process of rebuttal.
My take on it is that at some stage in the future Trump won't be President and the Democrats will control both houses. At that point he is toast for obstruction of justice.
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by gcomeau   » Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:09 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2313
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:24 pm

Daryl wrote:Sorry to be a grammar nazi, but "Their" is a third person possessive pronoun. You probably meant to use "There" as in "over there" or "there is".

I'm far from an expert on US law, but I would assume that setting up a very expensive inquiry to determine among other things that there is or is not collusion would imply that it is recognised under your law. Certainly is in ours.


He's quibbling about terms. The specific legal term covered by statute is conspiracy to engage in election interference... which people are short handing as "collusion".

Mueller found *loads* of shady, unethical, disloyal conduct involving the Trump Campaign and the Russians that falls under the general concept of collusion that any American who gives the tiniest of shits about loyalty to their country should consider 100% disqualifying in anyone wanting to be president and a severe compromising of national security, and he laid it out in detail. But proving active coordinated conspiracy to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold is a much higher bar to clear and Mueller judged the available evidence came up short of that standard while noting the investigation was actively hindered by admin officials constantly lying, refusing to cooperate, and in some cases destroying evidence. (You know, like a presidential administration that definitely didn't collude with the Russians would obviously do to a critical counter intelligence investigation being conducted after a hostile foreign government attacked the US election system)

Then he laid out an ironclad case for obstruction, noted explicitly that DOJ guidelines prevented him from indicting the president on it, then stated:

"With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice,"


This was a clear indication Mueller was handing off all the evidence of Obstruction to Congress to deal with.

Then Barr tried to grab that authority for himself to protect Trump... as he was appointed to do... and just declared "no obstruction" as soon as he got the report before anyone could read it.
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by Daryl   » Mon Apr 22, 2019 5:53 am

Daryl
Admiral

Posts: 2895
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Deniability.
Like King Henry had when he said "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest!", and Thomas Becket got the chop, but Henry could say I didn't expressly ask them to do that.
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by cthia   » Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:29 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11274
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

Hot damn! Dem talk of impeachment!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- a wolf in sheep's clothing? Or a sheep in wolves' clothing?

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by gcomeau   » Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:02 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2313
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:24 pm

Just to help certain parties out since I know they aren't actually reading it, I'm going to just post excerpts from the report in this thread now...

First, to repeat yet again, the Russians helped TRUMP. That is completely non debatable. They did not "really collude with the Democrats".

The focus on the U.S. presidential campaign continued throughout 2016. In REDACTED 2016 internal REDACTED reviewing the IRA-controlled Facebook group "Secured Borders, " the author criticized the "lower number of posts dedicated to criticizing Hillary Clinton" and reminded the Facebook specialist "it is imperative to intensify criticizing Hillary Clinton."


(But if you watch Trump's twitter feed, it was the Democrats colluding with the Russians, somehow...)


In addition to its massive online presence the Russian operation also organized real life rallies:

The IRA organized and promoted political rallies inside the United States while posing as U.S . grassroots activists. First, the IRA used one of its preexisting social media personas (Facebook groups and Twitter accounts, for example) to announce and promote the event. The IRA then sent a large number of direct messages to followers of its social media account asking them to attend the event. From those who responded with interest in attending , the IRA then sought a U.S. person to serve as the event's coordinator. In most cases, the IRA account operator would tell the U.S . person that they personally could not attend the event due to some preexisting conflict or because they were somewhere else in the United States. 82 The IRA then further promoted the event by contacting U.S. media about the event and directing them to speak with the coordinator. 83 After the event, the IRA posted videos and photographs of the event to the IRA 's social media accounts. 84

The Office identified dozens of U.S. rallies organized by the IRA. The earliest evidence of a rally was a "confederate rally" in November 2015. 85 The IRA continued to organize rallies even after the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The attendance at rallies varied. Some rallies appear to have drawn few (if any) pa1ticipants while others drew hundreds The reach and success of these rallies was closely monitored


Also, taking advantage of conservatives love of swallowing conspiracy theories hook line and sinker... they pushed the Seth Rich conspiracy to cover up the actual source of the stolen documents:

As reports attributing the DNC and DCCC hacks to the Russian government emerged, WikiLeaks and Assange made several public statements apparently designed to obscure the source of the materials that WikiLeaks was releasing. The file-transfer evidence described above and other information uncovered during the investigation discredit WikiLeaks's claims about the source of material that it posted.

Beginning in the summer of 2016 , Assange and WikiLeaks made a number of statements about Seth Rich , a former DNC staff member who was killed in July 2016. The statements about Rich implied falsely that he had been the source of the stolen DNC emails . On August 9, 2016, the @WikiLeaks Twitter account posted: "ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich. "


The Russians also seemed pretty damned responsive to Trump requests:

On July 27 2016, Unit 26165 targeted email accounts connected to candidate Clinton's personal office REDACTED . Earlier that day, candidate Trump made public statements that included the following: "Russia , if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press." 183 The "30,000 emails" were apparently a reference to emails described in media accounts as having been stored on a personal server that candidate Clinton had used while serving as Secretary of State.

Within approximately five hours of Trump's statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton's personal office. After candidate Trump's remarks, Unit 26165 created and sent malicious links targeting 15 email accounts at the domain REDACTED including an email account belonging to Clinton aide REDACTED.The investigation did not find evidence of earlier GRU attempts to compromise accounts hosted on this domain. It is unclear how the GRU was able to identify these email accounts, which were not public. 184
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by gcomeau   » Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:50 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2313
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:24 pm

More tidbits from the report...

(Deripaska is a close Putin ally, for those who have been paying absolutely no attention whatsoever)

Gates also reported that Manafort instructed him in April 2016 or early May 2016 to send Kilimnik Campaign internal polling data and other updates so that Kilimnik, in turn, could share it with Ukrainian oligarchs. 888 Gates understood that the information would also be shared with Deripaska REDACTED. 889 Gates reported to the Office that he did not know why Manafort wanted him to send polling information , but Gates thought it was a way to showcase Manafort 's work, and Manafort wanted to open doors to jobs after the Trump Campaign ended. 890 Gates said that Manafort 's instruction included sending internal polling data prepared for the Trump Campaign by pollster Tony Fabrizio. 891 Fabrizio had worked with Manafort for years and was brought into the Campaign by Manafort . Gates stated that, in accordance with Manafort's instruction , he periodically sent Kilimnik polling data via WhatsApp ; Gates then deleted the communications on a daily basis. 892


Nothing to see here.... just someone at the top of the Trump Campaign engaged in totally innocent above board regular communication of highly valuable campaign proprietary information that just *happens* to be exactly what the Russians would need to target their election interference efforts... to someone with connections to Russian Intelligence and a Russian Oligarch closely connected to Vladimir Putin... and I'm sure he made certain to delete his message history on a daily basis out of an innate desire to keep his phone tidy... :roll:
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by gcomeau   » Mon Apr 22, 2019 5:05 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2313
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:24 pm

And here we have the Trump Campaign Chairman engaging in coded discussions about the future of Russia friendly powers seizing control of chunks of Ukraine....


Manafort met with Kilimnik a second time at the Grand Havana Club in New York City on the evening of August 2, 2016 . The events leading to the meeting are as follows. On July 28, 2016, Kilimnik flew from Kiev to Moscow. 912 The next day, Kilimnik wrote to Manafort requesting that they meet, using coded language about a conversation he had that day.913 In an email with a subject line "Black Caviar," Kilimnik wrote:

I met today with the guy who gave you your biggest black caviar jar several years ago. We spent about 5 hours talking about his story , and I have several important messages from
him to you. He asked me to go and brief you on our conversation. I said I have to run it by you first, but in principle I am prepared to do it. ... It has to do about the future of his country, and is quite interesting. 914


Manafort identified "the guy who gave you your biggest black caviar jar" as Yanukovych. He explained that, in 2010, he and Yanukovych had lunch to celebrate the recent presidential election. Yanukovych gave Manafort a large jar of black caviar that was worth approximately $30,000 to $40,000.915 Manafort's identification of Yanukovych as "the guy who gave you your biggest black caviar jar" is consistent with Kilimnik being in Moscow-where Yanukovych resided-when Kilimnik wrote "I met today with~ a December 2016 email in which Kilimnik referred to Yanukovych as "BG,"- 916 Manafort replied to Kilimnik's July 29 email, "Tuesday [August 2] is best . .. Tues or weds in NYC." 9 17

Three days later, on July 31, 2016, Kilimnik flew back to Kiev from Moscow, and on that same day, wrote to Manafort that he needed "about 2 hours" for their meeting "because it is a long caviar story to tell." 918 Kilimnik wrote that he would arrive at JFK on August 2 at 7:30 p.m., and he and Manafort agreed to a late dinner that night.919 Documentary evidence- including flight, phone, and hotel records, and the timing of text messages exchanged 920-confirms the dinner took place as planned on August 2.921

As to the contents of the meeting itself, the accounts of Manafort and Gates-who arrived late to the dinner-differ in certain respects. But their versions of events, when assessed alongside available documentary evidence and what Kilimnik told business associate Sam Patten, indicate that at least three principal topics were discussed. First, Manafort and Kilimnik discussed a plan to resolve the ongoing political problems in Ukraine by creating an autonomous republic in its more industrialized eastern region ofDonbas, 922 and having Yanukovych, the Ukrainian President ousted in 2014, elected to head that republic. 923

That plan, Manafort later acknowledged, constituted a "backdoor" means for Russia to control eastern Ukraine. 924
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by gcomeau   » Mon Apr 22, 2019 5:13 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2313
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:24 pm

More gems from what the Trump Campaign Chairman was doing during the campaign... (and also examples of Manafort trying to weasel out of this with the Special Counsel's Office by saying he blew off the plan and it ended there and getting caught lying)

Manafort initially said that, if he had not cut off the discussion, Kilimnik would have asked Manafort in the August 2 meeting to convince Trump to come out in favor of the peace
plan, and Yanukovych would have expected Manafort to use his connections in Europe and Ukraine to support the plan. 925 Manafort also initially told the Office that he had said to Kilimnik that the plan was crazy, that the discussion ended, and that he did not recall Kilimnik asking Manafort to reconsider the Ian after their August 2 meeting. 926 Manafort said REDACTED that he reacted negatively to Yanukovych sending-years later-an "urgent" request when Yanukovych needed him. 927 When confronted with an email written by Kilimnik on or about December 8, 2016, however, Manafort acknowledged Kilimnik raised the peace plan again in that email. 928 Manafort ultimately acknowled ed Kilimnik also raised the peace plan in January 2017 meetings with Manafort REDACTED 929

Second, Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's plan to win the election. 930 That briefing encompassed the Campaign's messaging and its internal polling data . According to Gates, it also included discussion of "battleground" states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. 931 Manafort did not refer explicitly to "battle ground " states in his telling of the August 2 discussion, REDACTED.

Third, according to Gates and what Kilimnik told Patten, Manafort and Kilimnik discussed two sets of financial disputes related to Mana fort's previous work in the region. Those consisted of the unresolved Deripaska lawsuit and the funds that the Opposition Bloc owed to Manafort for his political consulting work and how Manafort might be able to obtain payment. 933

After the meeting, Gates and Manafort both stated that they left separately from Kilimnik because they knew the media was tracking Manafort and wanted to avoid media reporting on his connections to Kilimnik. 934
Top
Re: EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!
Post by smr   » Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:48 am

smr
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1443
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:18 pm

This Mueller report is interesting especially Part 2. Part 2 lays out a plan for Obstruction . I am sometimes cheap where it comes to money. For this exercise I printed out the report and howled at the cost. At dinner, my family goes and discusses one point of the obstruction. One the 3rd point my son pointed out a pattern. The Mueller team lays out a case for obstruction and then destroys the case with a couple of sentences. the sad part is I can never tell him that because that would turn into an argument that I was trying to control him. He is not my biological son but a son in my heart. Talk about unintended consequences that was one I never saw coming. Sadly, I think he is destined for the Intelligence game much to my objections but happiness of certain members of my extended family. I really hoped he would be a engineer or a doctor.
Top

Return to Politics