Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[twa]

2 minutes ago, Burgold said:

 

 

If this was an FBI sting and the agents posed as Russian agents and gave Donald Jr. fake documents that would be enough to arrest him. It'd be proof of conspiracy. There's intent, there's action, and there's the rest of it. All these rationalizations are garbage and they are not even lawyer worthy.

 

No it would not be, except on some minor charge such as receiving something of value.

Anyone want to guess what the penalty for that usually is?

[Larry]

7 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Haven't read the emails, but if the understanding is "We have hacked emails and we will give them to you to subvert the American Election process"... that's pretty bad. If not only because it's collusion and conspiracy with a foreign actor, but it is accepting stolen material. Hacked material is illegally obtained. Accepting it is breaking a law, isn't it?

 

Is there some reason why you trimmed out the part of my post that answers your question, so you could ask me that question?  

 

It seems like I'm dealing with this contrived outrage from multiple posters:  

 

Poster:  "They talked to Russia.  That's illegal!"

 

Larry:  "I don't think talking to Russia is illegal."  

 

Poster "How can you say that conspiring to commit a crime isn't illegal?"  

 

6 minutes ago, twa said:

 

No it would not be, except on some minor charge such as receiving something of value.

Anyone want to guess what the penalty for that usually is?

 

"receiving something of value, in exchange for a promise to perform certain actions, if elected".  

 

Curiously, you seem to keep pretending like that part wasn't there.  

 

Eagerly awaiting the "But Trump says they didn't agree!  (And the mere fact that they actually delivered pro-Russian policies, later?  Well, let's just pretend that doesn't exist, either)".  

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I can't speak for everyone else but I know that I, for one, don't believe that merely talking to Russians is illegal, never said that merely talking to Russians was illegal, and was pretty clear on where the illegality of such an incident would come from.

[Dan T.]

I'm a bit surprised that this latest thing with Junior was, if I'm hearing right, apparently NOT known about by Robert Mueller's special counsel group until the New York Times broke the story. Did I imagine that, or is that true?

[Burgold]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Is there some reason why you trimmed out the part of my post that answers your question, so you could ask me that question?  

Nah, no reason other than I've been trained by ES not to quote long passages. The bit I quoted just seemed the most relevant part to what I wanted to respond to. On the whole, I might have misread what you were going after. Non the less--

In the full context of what Donald Trump Jr. was doing... I believe that talking, meeting, and trying to obtain illegally procured intel from Russian agents to undermine a US election is illegal. Frankly, so did the Trump campaign. That's why they lied about it. That's why he put out multiple stories. That's why not one, not two, but umpteen Trump officials have lied about their actions and engagement.

 

They acted in collusion with an enemy actor to tamper with the election. In this meeting, we see intent, action, and foreknowledge (they knew who they were meeting with), etc.

 

I suspect you can talk to Russians about the election. Talking to government officials who are trying to subvert an election is a different thing entirely.

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

I'm a bit surprised that this latest thing with Junior was, if I'm hearing right, apparently NOT known about by Robert Mueller's special counsel group until the New York Times broke the story. Did I imagine that, or is that true?

 

I haven't read anything that says that.  

 

But I wouldn't have any trouble believing it.  

[twa]

1 minute ago, Dan T. said:

I'm a bit surprised that this latest thing with Junior was, if I'm hearing right, apparently NOT known about by Robert Mueller's special counsel group until the New York Times broke the story. Did I imagine that, or is that true?

 

Well his group is just getting started really and there are too many Russians roaming round for the FBI to follow 24/7.

I don't doubt the FBI had some information on it though.

[twa]

Burgold, the court cannot simply assume the information was illegally obtained or the Jr knew it would be.

You can receive and review illegal obtained material anyway in most cases....long as you were not involved.

Wikileaks should tell ya that.

[spjunkies]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

Burgold, the court cannot simply assume the information was illegally obtained or the Jr knew it would be.

You can receive and review illegal obtained material anyway in most cases....long as you were not involved.

Wikileaks should tell ya that.

 

What do you think happened? I'm not talking the legality of the situation, but your personal opinion.

[twa]

Just now, spjunkies said:

 

What do you think happened? I'm not talking the legality of the situation, but your personal opinion.

 

I would go with the CIA guy's description of a probe or a Dem setup....but I'm suspicious by nature.

It could have just been someone dangling a carrot to get a audience.

 

No way would I walk into that with that e-mail exchange, ya use disposable flunkies for deniability.

[visionary]

 

[Dan T.]

Mr. Benghazi himself, Rep. Trey Gowdy, weighed in today:

 

“Here we are beginning another week, this one in July, with a new revelation about Russia,” Gowdy said. “Someone close to the president needs to get everyone connected with that campaign in a room and say: From the time you saw ‘Doctor Zhivago’ until the moment you drank vodka with a guy named Boris, you list every single one of those, and we are going to turn them over to the special counsel. Because this drip, drip, drip is undermining the credibility of this administration.”

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trey-gowdy-blasts-trump-team-amnesia-russia-meetings-162739010.html

[LD0506]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

The FBI as an organization operates slow and methodically. That comes from people I know that have worked with them multiple times.

 

They do not like making mistakes, they do not like being embarrassed. It happens, but they put real effort into avoiding it.

 

The people running this have that mindset. This will take a while. But if there's something there, I believe they will find it. And I believe there is something there. And I think when we figure out what it is it's going to blow everyone's minds (I bet the most damning stuff doesn't have much to do with the election, and occurred years beforehand...)

 

They're going to wait until they don't think there is anymore evidence, then they're going to present their case.

 

Look at the people on the staff... look at their professional career paths. Draw your own conclusions. Did Mueller hire them because they are buddies and he's getting them paid/recognition? Or did he hire them because they are experts in something?

 

I'm betting the latter. Which means the investigation into russian interference in the election is heavily staffed by people with long careers investigating organized crime, money laundering, financial crimes, and specifically related to eastern european investigations (and one dude with a long history of terrorism stuff, i can't figure out the angle there)

 

 

 

This guy gets it.

 

This is not a reality show and it doesn't depend one iota on recognition or headlines or ratings and it will not be dumbed down for the slow and hard-of-thinking. There is a process, a well established process that will mine this vein 'til there ain't no more to mine.

 

Take a few minutes, look at the staff Mueller has assembled and do that Google thang if you don't know who they are. These are assassins, total legal barracudas, the kinda lawyers that keep lawyers awake at night. This is not a "going through the motions" kinda thing, you don't build a machine like this if there isn't a job worthy of it. Pay attention, talk less, read more, pay even more attention, years from now you will want to be able to tell the tale.

 

On an unrelated note, The Rock filed with the FEC.

[Dan T.]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I would go with the CIA guy's description of a probe or a Dem setup....but I'm suspicious by nature.

It could have just been someone dangling a carrot to get a audience.

 

No way would I walk into that with that e-mail exchange, ya use disposable flunkies for deniability.

 

So you jump right to the Hannity-endorsed theory of a set-up by conniving Democrats.  That they masterminded that three-dimensional chess move way back in June 2016. 

 

Why am I not surprised.

[Larry]

7 minutes ago, twa said:

Burgold, the court cannot simply assume the information was illegally obtained or the Jr knew it would be.

 

Yes, it's possible that the Russian government was attempting to bribe a Presidential candidate by offering him information which the Russian government obtained legally.  

 

11 minutes ago, twa said:

You can receive and review illegal obtained material anyway in most cases....long as you were not involved.

Wikileaks should tell ya that.

 

As long as you don't agree to do anything in payment for it.  

 

(Which they did, as evidenced by the fact that they did, and are continuing, to do things for Russia.)  

[No Excuses]

9 minutes ago, twa said:

 a Dem setup....

 

 

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

A notch above your other conspiracy that the Dems are also under investigation for collusion with Russia (but we just don't know about it).

[Larry]

We have now achieved "The **** set me up!"  

[tshile]

54 minutes ago, Burgold said:

So, I don't get this argument Conservatives are making.

 

There's nothing to get. The only people left defending him are delusional. They think this is "the swamp" protecting itself because Trump is there to "drain the swamp" and they can't handle it.

 

I'm not kidding this is literally the argument I was given last night by someone.

 

Also - same person said "obama refused to release his birth certificate, why is jr not telling us about this email until now any different?" and i just... i didn't even know how to respond.

 

There are two key things to watch right now:

Sean Hannity - as much as I loathe him, and i believe you do too, he's the leading indicator on this one. When he starts making an argument that seems out of left field, a few weeks later it all the sudden makes sense. He started the whole "so what if they talked to the russians, that's not illegal!" crap 3 or 4 weeks ago and here we are - an email that says they were talking to him, they were doing so about clinton, but they got 3 weeks of "but that's not illegal" and "but hillary" crap already planted in people's heads. That's just a recent example. Pay attention to what he says, it tells you what the next thing is going to be.

 

Mitch McConnel - he's the weatherwave of the GOP.  When he turns, the party will turn. He's already given up on healthcare reform. I believe

 

Everything else is noise unless it comes from the FBI or Mueller (and when I say 'comes from' I mean they put their name behind it, not anonymous source close to whatever stuff)

[visionary]

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

56 minutes ago, twa said:

 

No it would not be, except on some minor charge such as receiving something of value.

Anyone want to guess what the penalty for that usually is?

you are not a lawyer

[twa]

Just now, BenningRoadSkin said:

you are not a lawyer

 

Is this site for lawyers?

I can recommend a few if ya need one

[Larry]

1 minute ago, visionary said:

 

 

"So, how do you feel about the liberal media attacking you with all of these illegally leaked claims?"  

 

[visionary]

I remember back when we were assured there were none.  Then that there were none other than Flynn.  Then that there were no more.  That was all months ago.

[Bang]

2 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

you are not a lawyer

Oh come on,, it's Wednesday.

Thursday is "Climate scientist"

Friday is "Health Insurance provider"

(And "Honky-Tonk DeeJay".. which is alright by me)

 

Aren't you in on the memo chain?

 

~Bang

 

Edited July 12, 2017 by Bang

[BornaSkinsFan83]

42 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

I'm a bit surprised that this latest thing with Junior was, if I'm hearing right, apparently NOT known about by Robert Mueller's special counsel group until the New York Times broke the story. Did I imagine that, or is that true?

 

I saw the same thing somewhere. Don't remember where. I find that hard to believe though. And the fact that it isn't a bigger story tells me it's probably bull****.

 

Anyway say it is true, Mueller is still hiring people. He's just starting. His investigation is gonna take a minute. No one's Time Cop-ing the meetings and colluding. I'm not worried. 

23 minutes ago, Larry said:

We have now achieved "The **** set me up!"  

 

RIP