BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

diana_eva, on 2018-February-15, 15:08, said:

Unfortunately, we're not all blessed with the certainties of a Republican or a Democrat or an Atheist. If you're unsure of a "fact", then it's reasonable to qualify its quotation. IMO, many of the claims on this forum are unproven, some are disputed, and some are false.

More bad news for fans of the president:

Quote

It is amazing. Mueller seems to be running a classic organized-crime-family investigation and he keeps finding roaches under each rock he overturns. Money laundering, anyone?

Tick-tock, tick-tock...

nige1, on 2018-February-15, 17:43, said:

Sorry, but how can you be "unsure" of a fact?

Quote

This is what a fact looks like. Are you claiming doubt this happened?

Winstonm, on 2018-February-15, 19:54, said:

"Fact" not "unsure" was in quotes. You can be unsure of what somebody else claims to be a "fact".

Winstonm, on 2018-February-15, 19:54, said:

Straw man.

Winstonm, on 2018-February-15, 11:24, said:

You don't know how to think like a conspiracy theorist. This just reinforces their belief in how widespread the conspiracy is, the investigators are part of it or the conspirators have enough power to suppress their findings.

In Trump's America, "facts" are practically irrelevant. Stephen Colbert's "truthiness" has moved from a comedy show to the White House.

nige1, on 2018-February-16, 09:21, said:

You can be ignorant of the facts but that does not alter the reality of a fact. Ignorance of facts can lead to erroneous conclusions. I doubt there is one among us who has not rowed that leaky boat. The only way to plug those holes is with solid information. Solid information is not found on the opinion isle or in the talk-show cooler. It comes from sources whose interest is presenting facts to the best of their ability, and the only way to do that is to multi-source.

In the same vein, denial of facts because of distaste for those particular facts is not the same as genuine ignorance.

I was just told that the following is mandatory reading

https://www.justice....035477/download

Key comment by Rosenstein: “there is no allegation in THIS indictment that any American was a knowing participant...”

And here's the plea agreement for the guy who was doing the money laundering

https://assets.docum...a-Agreement.pdf

hrothgar, on 2018-February-16, 13:04, said:

Notice the indictment states acts occurred "....Defendents, along with others known and unknown to the grand jury knowingly and intentionally conspired to defraud the United states....".

I am wondering who the known others are?

hrothgar, on 2018-February-16, 14:22, said:

3:15 p.m. Central time - CNN reporting he has pled guilty.

In advance of the suspected spin, keep in mind that Rosenstein today did not clear anyone:

Quote

https://twitter.com/...594743320678401

Quote

FWIW, here's the piece of the story that I really want to understand...

Everyone expected Trump to lose

• The media expected Trump to lose
  
• The Clinton campaign ...
  
• The Trump campaign ...
  
• The Russians ...
  
• You name it

What was the Russian game plan if the expected situation came to pass?

Given the number of Trump comments about rigged elections, I wouldn't be surprised if the real plan was for Trump to contest the election results.
And if this can be documented, we're talking high treason...

hrothgar, on 2018-February-16, 19:02, said:

I can only speculate.

A: They believed just getting Trump into serious play would be highly disruptive. That certainly was correct. I gather that they also ere trying to help Sanders get the Dem nomination, perhaps thinking that also would shake things up a bit.

B: They were trying out some tools. Of course they had their research teams, their hackers, and their bots, but what works in one country does not necessarily work in another. So they thought of this as a trial version. If Trump had not won much of their activities would have, perhaps, been briefly noted but then forgotten. Then they could be fine-tuned for 2020.

C: They just figured to push as hard as they could and see what came up. This is really just a variant on B. I think a hard and cool look at HC would have shown her to be a very weak candidate.

D: They might well have thought they could bring some high level political operatives into some unwise liaisons that would be useful to them later. The stuff out today speaks of "unwitting participants" or something like that. That could lead to leverage.

To evaluate how they might have seen their chances, let's try to think like a cynical Russian for a minute, or maybe just any sort of cynic. Pick a random person, buy him a beer, and ask him to describe three or four things that come to mind regarding Hillary Clinton.
1. She was/is married to Bill Clinton, at least sort of.
2. She took on the job of putting a new health care system in place during the BC presidency. She failed.
3. She tried for the Democratic nomination in 2008. She failed.

I am imagining this conversation, or cynically imagined conversation, taking place back in 2014 so I won't include her failure to win in 2016.

More informed people might mention that she was a Senator or the Secretary of State but few of them could tell you what she accomplished in either of these positions. Perhaps people should be better informed. Perhaps I should be better informed. They aren't, I'm not. She needed votes from people that are not political junkies.

A cynic, or maybe just a realist, might well have foreseen an opportunity here.

So I don't know the answer to your question, I am speculating. I agree it's a good question. Actually I think it's a very good question.

In the world of international intrigue, spies and their masters are continuously testing the limits and capabilities of their enemies. Methods and means are now such that highly sophisticated and even secure systems can be probed and exploited. The greater the access the easier the penetration and all of our electronic communication and social media are a vast new sea of opportunities to explore. Pretty much business as usual and unsurprising as the US is right in there with the rest of them.

An attorney on MSNBC is suggesting that the new information tonight concerning alleged new crimes of Paul Manafort may be used to revoke bail and hold Manafort in jail until trial - which would put serious pressure on Manafort to make a deal. Reading tea leaves, it looks like Mueller may think Manafort is the key witness.

hrothgar, on 2018-February-16, 19:02, said:

To start to get a good handle on how the Russians work, you might want to go back and listen to the testimony of William Browder before the Senate Judiciary committee last summer. It was reportedly in regard to the FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act), but the Senators quizzed him quite a bit about how the Russians operate, his view of the situation in Russia and some comments about Russian activity in the US concerning attempts to have the Magnitsky Act repealed. It is stunning. On the committee website, they've only posted his opening remarks and answers to a few questions by Dems. So unless you can find a full transcript somewhere, you'd have to watch the video of his testimony.

As is oft the case, Lawfare has some good analysis

https://lawfareblog....ller-indictment

Key quotes

Quote

Quote

hrothgar, on 2018-February-16, 19:02, said:

It would probably be simpler than that. How about if the Russians had hacked the Clinton e-mail server and had irrefutable evidence implicating Clinton in a pay to play bribery scheme involving the Clinton Foundation. That certainly would shake the foundations of our democracy by fomenting a constitutional crisis.

The important thing to understand is that the Russkis will have contingency plans for all eventualities and will try to infiltrate themselves into all sides. Note that the indictment alleges how the Russians organized both pro-Trump and anti-Trump protests to promote civil unrest.

Here's a good article with some facts on Russian interference in the election.