Russian Probe - Indictments Imminent

[jdshock]

So? Being around for period of time isn't a reason to exist. Things have life spans.

If our society through laws, social standards, and technology has passed beyond the need for the horse industry, then we don't prop them up just because they have been needed for thousands of years. Similarly for social forms of schools or federal departments. Being formerly useful does not mean useful today. And they will become a very large negative as society no longer needs them.

Fine. I'm not arguing that right now.

I'm just saying you aren't the center. The "center" is not in favor of radically shifting everything that we have relied on for decades and decades. I hate the narrative that it's the left that has run from the center when the people usually making the claim are all about completely changing how the government operates today.

Believe what you want, but own it. You're not the center.

[CBB_Fan]

Two questions:

1. Who was the Russian official that was contacted and who from the Trump campaign met with the Russian official?
2. Steele is an ex-government official that reportedly worked with Russian officials. How does adding an extra layer and paying that person make it different? Isn't that still the Clinton campaign obtaining information from a foreign official?

1. Ivan Timofeyev, director of programs at the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) was the MFA member that contacted Papa. Carter Page is believed to have met with Russian officials on his trip to Moscow.

2. The issue is not obtaining information from a foreign official. The issues are: Receiving foreign political donations, and unapproved contact with a foreign official with the intent to influence that official's government.

You can obtain information from a foreign national, as long as the US Intelligence Agency approves of it, you pay for it, it isn't an attempt to influence another country, and the IRS gets their fair share.

[shockfan89_]

But that's where you lose me in your comparison. If it is proven that information was provided to the Trump campaign by Russian officials, I think you and many people would consider that a foreign political donation. Iffy, but I can get there especially if the information is the hacked DNC e-mails and those e-mails were released by the Trump campaign. I will concede that I don't think a US Intelligence Agency approved it so that would be considered unapproved contact.

But how do you not get to the same conclusion on the Clinton campaign and DNC commissioning of the Steele dossier? I don't think the Steele dossier was approved by US Intelligence Agency? It is definitely a foreign political donation if the reports are true that Steele used Kremlin contacts to provide the information. I think the amount paid could even be considered an attempt to influence another country.

[CBB_Fan]

But that's where you lose me in your comparison. If it is proven that information was provided to the Trump campaign by Russian officials, I think you and many people would consider that a foreign political donation. Iffy, but I can get there especially if the information is the hacked DNC e-mails and those e-mails were released by the Trump campaign. I will concede that I don't think a US Intelligence Agency approved it so that would be considered unapproved contact.

But how do you not get to the same conclusion on the Clinton campaign and DNC commissioning of the Steele dossier? I don't think the Steele dossier was approved by US Intelligence Agency? It is definitely a foreign political donation if the reports are true that Steele used Kremlin contacts to provide the information. I think the amount paid could even be considered an attempt to influence another country.

The Steele dossier:

Wasn't a donation.

The Clinton campaign paid for it. Well, more precisely the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid the law firm Perkins Cole, which hired Fusion GPS, which hired Orbis Business Intelligence. The payments from Clinton to Perkins Cole were described as legal services in FEC disclosures, which for accuracy's sake is probably misleading. This may be an FEC violation in and of itself (I don't know the ins and outs of campaign finance to that level of minutiae), but it isn't the same as receiving the info for free and not disclosing it at all.

Campaigns can and do pay foreign companies during the course of an election. The Clinton campaign spent money that eventually went to the London based PI firm Orbis Business Intelligence, but they weren't alone even in London. The Trump campaign spent $5M hiring the London based Cambridge Analytica. As long as it isn't free, is disclosed, follows the rules, and pays taxes it is fine financially.

Was known by the FBI at least by July 2016.

The public didn't learn of the dossier until December 2016, after the election, and it wasn't fully published until Buzzfeed leaked it in January 2017. But the FBI knew of it much earlier, going by this CNN piece, (relevant sections quoted):

The dossier has also been cited by FBI Director James Comey in some of his briefings to members of Congress in recent weeks, as one of the sources of information the bureau has used to bolster its investigation, according to US officials briefed on the probe.This includes approval from the secret court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor the communications of Carter Page, two of the officials said. ...

To some of them, he has emphasized that the FBI gathered evidence as part of its investigation to support seeking FISA court approval and to take other steps as part of the probe that began last July

For reference, Orbis (an Steele) were hired in June 2016 after the reveal of the DNC email hack. Steele created the dossier as a series of 2-3 page raw intelligence reports, the first finished on June 20, 2016. This means that the FBI was aware of and using the dossier as early as its first memo, going by the timeline of the Carter Page FISA warrant.

Wasn't an attempt by a US citizen to influence a foreign government.

For one, the person contacting and "influencing" Russia was a British citizen. But even then, that would not be enough to assuage Fusion GPS, Perkins Cole, the DNC, and the Clinton campaign of guilt. The nature, and context of Steele's Russian contacts are what absolve them of suspicion.

To start, Steele was an ex-spy. He was using sources whose loyalty he bought and paid for while working for MI6 in Moscow, not simply going through official Russian government channels or emailing Putin's stooges in the MFA. And whereas the Papa stipulation reveals a group of Russians working together (the Professor, the Female Russian National, and the MFA agent) to accomplish a common goal, the dossier reveals a disparate group of contacts whose credibility has been verified through past contact with Steele:

• Source A: a high ranking MFA member, highly credible
• Source B: a former Russian intelligence officer, likely credible
• Source C: a senior Russian financial official, unknown credibility
• Source D: a close Trump associate, unknown credibility
• Source E: a western employee at the Ritz-Carlton hotel, unknown credibility
• Source F: another hotel employee, unknown credibility
• Source G: senior Kremlin official, likely credible

The Russian contacts at the top and bottom are considered credible because despite their position in the Russian government, they've given accurate information in the past. The charges relying on less known credible sources usually rely on independent corroboration between different sources along with background knowledge on typical Russian methods.

None of these accounts can be considered an organized counterintelligence effort by the Russians. They weren't directed by an organized figure in the Kremlin, they were independently approached in a way controlled by Steele (as opposed to the way Papa was largely directed by the Russians).

Such a setup made it impossible to create a quid pro quo agreement with the Russia government, let alone try to influence Russian policy. That would require perfect knowledge of both Steele and his contacts by the Russians, so that the narrative could be shaped before Steele went to gather intelligence.

The layers of abstraction, along with the methods and intent show that there was no "intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof."

[boltforge]

How is picking the lock into a home, guns drawn, feeling up the wife while she was in bed OK? What happens if they shoot and kill Manafort or his wife while doing this?

The psychology of Mueller and his crew that this is fine is insane.

[Aargh]

How is picking the lock into a home, guns drawn, feeling up the wife while she was in bed OK? What happens if they shoot and kill Manafort or his wife while doing this?

The psychology of Mueller and his crew that this is fine is insane.

Trump did say that police should feel free to be rough with criminals when they arrest them.

I don't think "feeling up the wife" is an accurate description of getting checked for a firearm. If you associate with and live with criminals, you are likely to run into situations you'd rather avoid when those people are arrested. Don't do the crime, and there's no problem.

I doubt there'd be many complaints if a drug dealer's wife was patted down for a weapon when the drug dealer was arrested.

[jdshock]

How is picking the lock into a home, guns drawn, feeling up the wife while she was in bed OK? What happens if they shoot and kill Manafort or his wife while doing this?

The psychology of Mueller and his crew that this is fine is insane.

Sounds like you're unfamiliar with the new police orders:

"Now, we're getting them [criminals] out anyway, but we'd like to get them out a lot faster, and when you see these towns and when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just see them thrown in, rough, I said, please don't be too nice. Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you're protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over, like, don't hit their head and they've just killed somebody. Don't hit their head. I said, you can take the hand away, okay?"

[wufan]

The points are valid about treatment vs what has been stated publicly. However, I’m doubtful Manafort was a violent criminal.

[jdshock]

The points are valid about treatment vs what has been stated publicly. However, I’m doubtful Manafort was a violent criminal.

Whether or not they're a violent criminal is completely irrelevant. It's not the job of the police to punish suspects.

What Trump called for is disgusting. It's a slap in the face to due process.

If Manafort and his wife were physically harmed in anyway, those officers or agents should definitely be punished. But the same is true of any officer that intentionally injures a suspect that is already in custody.

[wufan]

I agree that law enforcement shouldn’t intentionally harm suspects.

[boltforge]

I agree that law enforcement shouldn’t intentionally harm suspects.

Then you disagree with most people on the left. To them the government should be used to intimidate and threaten those they consider the enemy (example: IRS). Even if you have to use the same firm that Putin used to smear a murdered journalist to get your intimidation started.

Isn't using Fusion GPS to initiate this whole thing just a more professional version of swatting?

Hmm. Maybe we all should do this. Hire a media hit firm like Fusion GPS to create dossier's on people we don't like. Then just leak it to the government, sit back, and watch the raids. Nah.

[CBB_Fan]

The points are valid about treatment vs what has been stated publicly. However, I’m doubtful Manafort was a violent criminal.

There was some reason to think he would be willing to use violence.

"Don't fool yourself," Andrea wrote to her sister, according to the texts. "That money we have is blood money."

"You know he has killed people in Ukraine? Knowingly," she continued, according to the reviewed texts. "As a tactic to outrage the world and get focus on Ukraine. Remember when there were all those deaths taking place. A while back. About a year ago. Revolts and what not. Do you know whose strategy that was to cause that, to send those people out and get them slaughtered."

[Kung Wu]

Breaking news on 13 indicted Russians and three Russian entities.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/russians-indicted-in-special-counsel-robert-muellers-probe.html

[Kung Wu]

This group started getting organized in 2014 -- long before it was apparent who the Presidential candidates would be.

It's clear their intent is to cause widespread political unrest and upheaval. They made substantial use of identity theft at social media engineering for their campaigns.

As the election proceeded, it looks like this group began to support Bernie Sanders and Trump. They were against Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Hillary.

After the election they started multiple anti-Trump campaigns (e.g. "Trump is NOT my President" and "Charlotte Against Trump") and coordinated at least one rally to protest the election results.

They made concerted efforts to look like they were always posting as US citizens, even making sure to only post from US servers and use US based email addresses.

Communication between this group and Trump supporters was "unwitting":

Defendants and their co-conspirators also used false U.S. personas to communicate with unwitting members, volunteers, and supporters of the Trump Campaign involved in local community outreach, as well as grassroots groups that supported then-candidate Trump.

(emphasis mine)

[jdshock]

Communication between this group and Trump supporters was "unwitting":

(emphasis mine)

The other thing people are pointing to is that the indictment says something along the lines of "this charge is not an allegation that any US officials willingly participated in their attempts." I wouldn't really read into them too much, though. It's not like the criminal defense attorneys can put forth evidence that says "haha, they worked with Trump knowingly, so your charge actually fails!" And if the prosecution had removed the word "unwitting" and it just said "communicate with members, volunteers..." can you imagine the field day liberals would've had? EVERYBODY would've been losing their minds about the fact that the indictment seemed to suggest where the investigation was going. Every single liberal site would've had headlines that said "Indictment Suggests Russians 'Communicated with Members of Trump Campaign'."

I think the important take aways are really all things we've already known:

1. As we have known for a while, Russians attempted to influence our election, and they were in particular opposed to Hillary Clinton.

2. As we have known for a while, Russians not only attempted to get Trump elected, they tried to create political unrest during the process and after. I think this is particularly important because there will continue to be significant disagreement so long as huge numbers of Trump supporters continue to say "the Russians really wanted Hillary to win!" I can't tell you how much more respect I'd have for Trump if he'd quit spreading his propaganda that Russia wasn't involved and that they supported Clinton.

3. (Also, as we have known for a while) We have no idea what is going on in the Mueller investigation until something happens. It can just be radio silence and then a huge event that we had no idea was going to happen. They could stop tomorrow and say "well, I think we about covered everything" or in three weeks it could be "here's the smoking gun." We just have no idea and we aren't going to know until it happens. It's fun to speculate, but that's all we can do at this point.

And as a corollary to number 3: it's frankly pretty fun to watch Mueller in action. It really feels like we don't know anything we're not supposed to.

[ShockCrazy]

Absolutely Russia would have interfered regardless. They had ways of disrupting the campaign and election, different candidates wouldn't have changed that. But here's where the big question lies(and I'm not answering with certainty one way or another): would Trump, his campaign and staff(with it's many close ties to Russia and Russian oligarchs in the form of Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Page, Papadopolous, and even Trump himself has personal connections), turn down aid in the campaign since his message supported Russian objectives? They clearly wanted divide and wanted to subvert the electoral process, if they decided Trump helped their cause would they offer aid? Almost certainly. Would Trump/campaign/staff accept? That's the crux of the issue.

[ShockTalk]

The reason for my first comment is the following: 1) Did the Russians want Trump in office because he'd befriend them more or 2) Did the Russians want Trump in office simply because they can create more disruption in the US?

The narrative I keep hearing from the left is that they want Americans to think/believe that Trump is in bed with the Ruskies (i.e. he's going to sympathize with the Russians for his own monetary reasons). When, in fact, that may be a false narrative, but a very productive Russian disruption narrative.

[jdshock]

ShockTalk, that's the million dollar question. My biased perspective is that there's a lot to suggest they were particularly keen on Trump for a variety of reasons. Trump's been soft on them since elected, he has refused to take a stand on their cyber attack, his staff has had a lot of involvement with them, etc.

But there's just no real way to know at this point. And we might not ever know. Even if there is the smoking gun (e.g., Trump personally sent out an email that said "Vlad, I'd love your help to win this thing!"), that doesn't show what Russia's purpose was. Tough to know.

What I do believe we know is that Russia took actions that warrant punishment in some form.