Mueller's Patton the back (investigation thread v. 22)

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/russia-if-youre-listening/episodes

Interesting podcast done by an Australian

 

[waiguoren]

In all your course of conversing with others in your life, that sounds like a standard conversation you would have with someone? No, that sounds more like disgruntled former business partners talking

If I had to guess, I would say that's your pre-conceived view of the Stone/Wikileaks relationship clouding your interpretation. I mean that with respect. We all have biases.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

If I had to guess, I would say that's your pre-conceived view of the Stone/Wikileaks relationship clouding your interpretation. I mean that with respect. We all have biases.

It's not. That's just not a way people traditionally converse when they don't have a pre-existing relationship. Even look at the last message saying we can converse more.

Also, keep in mind many people were using encrypted messaging apps that the government has been trying to decode to gain access to.

Would you actually be surprised if this was their only communication?

Get a poll posted, I'd be willing to bet most would think it's a convo between people with some sort of prior relationship

 

[Andy Capp]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...stones-secret-messages-with-wikileaks/554432/

Except by his own admission. But as we know, unless he was found guilty of it by others, his admission of guilt means nothing.

This part leaves me shaking my head:
"Democrats have asked GOP members to subpoena Twitter for the private messages of Trump associates currently under investigation in the Russia probe, according to one of the sources familiar with the internal proceedings. But the majority has so far refused. “It is important to verify that information by subpoenaing the records directly from third parties—a step the Majority has consistently refused to take,” said Adam Schiff, a California Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Mike Conaway, the Texas Republican who is leading the committee’s investigation, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. As The Atlantic’s Julia Ioffe first disclosed last fall, WikiLeaks also exchanged private Twitter messages with Donald Trump Jr., who provided the correspondence to congressional investigators. WikiLeaks continued to message Trump Jr. through July 2017, “actively soliciting” his cooperation on ventures ranging from obtaining the president’s tax returns to appointing Assange Australia’s U.S. ambassador." [Emphasis mine]

If they aren't getting the original messages from Twitter, how do they know they aren't altered and how do they know they have all the relevant messages? And yes I know I haven't the slightest idea how they could be altered but sure as fuck a bunch of cops and lawyers looking at a screen with the messages on it can't tell just by looking. The only way to be sure is to nuke them from orbit get the original messages from Twitter's own servers.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

I'm convinced. Time to disband the Mueller investigation, and the entire Justice Department while we're at it.

Thanks, bud.

Disband the entire Justice department and let the GRU take over their duties. I've heard Putin is interested in doing this in the spirit of mutual cooperation and good faith.

 

[HomerThompson]

Disband the entire Justice department and let the GRU take over their duties. I've heard Putin is interested in doing this in the spirit of mutual cooperation and good faith.

Just think of all the bigly savings to the American taxpayer!

 

[MikeMcMann]

That's false. My comment was made with regard to Cohen. Plea deals often require that the accused plea guilty to an offense he does not believe he committed. We already went over this.

If you're going to attack me, at least get your facts straight.

I did get it straight but you are ducking and running from your prior comment.

Simply because SOME plea agreements may be tainted does not mean ALL are. So your supposition here is wrong and unfounded unless you can substantiate it. You are simply pointing and suggesting that Cohen not be believed 'because mistakes...' You suggested that if instead he was saying he was innocent the entire time and was CONVICTED then it would be believable.

When Manafort got CONVICTED you then suggested a conviction was not to be trusted because sometimes people are convicted wrongly, and you cited an example.

So it is fact that when it comes to your position on Trump cronies you will accept neither confessions nor convictions and which ever happens you will simply wave your hand to dismiss it because 'mistakes sometime happen...'.

You can lie about your position but you can't run from it.

 

[Andy Capp]

It's not. That's just not a way people traditionally converse when they don't have a pre-existing relationship. Even look at the last message saying we can converse more.

Also, keep in mind many people were using encrypted messaging apps that the government has been trying to decode to gain access to.

Would you actually be surprised if this was their only communication?

Get a poll posted, I'd be willing to bet most would think it's a convo between people with some sort of prior relationship

Yo, third sentence, did you mean to say, "... if this wasn't their only communication"? The next sentence suggests as much, and I agree with that one. Just clarifying.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Yo, third sentence, did you mean to say, "... if this wasn't their only communication"? The next sentence suggests as much, and I agree with that one. Just clarifying.

I did not. Simply because I believe they communicated more than the five that were turned over.

 

[Gandhi]

But this is circular. Now we're back to knowing it happened but there being little way of determining how much. However, there's this,
"A record 137.5 million Americans voted in the 2016 presidential election, according to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Overall voter turnout – defined as the share of adult U.S. citizens who cast ballots – was 61.4% in 2016, a share similar to 2012 but below the 63.6% who say they voted in 2008."

I gather from this the overall national trend has been toward higher participation, but this time around fewer blacks turned out while the trend of increased participation continued for white voters. What would explain this change when it wasn't apparent in the previous 2 cycles?

I agree its circular. But the quote seems to say that overall participation was flat form 2012 and down from 2098, while black participation dropped 2016 from 2012. Its an interesting topic that I will research more, my suspicion is that it was turnout not suppression that was the driving factor, but I could be wrong

 

[Quequeg]

Five text messages. You're right that I forgot about those. I admit fault, but my larger point stands. I'm confident that Stone will not be indicted or any "Russia collusion"-related crimes. I've already got a bet on that, in fact.

Are you an American citizen?

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

@HomerThompson @waiguoren

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/program...ing/jared-kushner-trump-crown-prince/10044906

goes into good detail regarding CA and data as well as Kushner's Russian issues

 

[Witchhunt]

Question for all of you, @waiguoren, @Rebound59, @panamaican (@alanb , sorry man, i know you aren't part of this but you might find this interesting):
Why are the Russian Indictments filed under Title 18 (main criminal code for the feds) rather than Title 52, (Voting and Elections)?

 

[Limbo Pete]

Question for all of you, @waiguoren, @Rebound59, @panamaican (@alanb , sorry man, i know you aren't part of this but you might find this interesting):
Why are the Russian Indictments filed under Title 18 (main criminal code for the feds) rather than Title 52, (Voting and Elections)?

@Quipling @Darkballs

 

[Witchhunt]

@Quipling @Darkballs

Thanks Pete.

Bro-fist

 

[Witchhunt]

Question for all of you, @waiguoren, @Rebound59, @panamaican (@alanb , sorry man, i know you aren't part of this but you might find this interesting):
Why are the Russian Indictments filed under Title 18 (main criminal code for the feds) rather than Title 52, (Voting and Elections)?

@JamesRussler You too man. So many......

 

[JamesRussler]

@JamesRussler You too man. So many......

Title 18 is the Criminal Code. That's like the designated spot where congress decided to define crimes. There are plenty of election-related offenses in there, don't worry.

 

[Witchhunt]

Title 18 is the Criminal Code. That's like the designated spot where congress decided to define crimes. There are plenty of election-related offenses in there, don't worry.

Thanks Brother, don't pull the trigger....

 

[waiguoren]

(Regarding new revelations of Peter Stzrok's "media leak strategy")


Host: Professor, does it bother you that a law enforcement agency would leak damaging and in some cases classified information about targets of their investigations? Why would you want to live in a country where that happens?

Professor Dershowitz:

I've been bothered by this since J. Edgar Hoover. He notoriously lived by leaks. He would threaten political enemies that he would leak information about their sex lives and about their private lives. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. When an FBI agent or a prosecutor leaks grand jury material, it's criminal.

What we need now is an objective investigation by the Inspector General, by the Office of Professional Responsibility into these leaks and into what was meant by the text message that said "we have a leak strategy". It's hard to believe that he meant we have a strategy to stop leaks. It seems much more plausible that he was talking about a strategy to leak things selectively to the media in order to achieve the goal he had set out for himself, namely, to have an "insurance policy" against electing a man who he thought was dangerous to the country. He had a right to his opinion. He had a right to vote any way he wanted. He doesn't have a right to try to influence the outcome of the election through leaks.

I'm taken by the point that he may not have leaked before the election. WE have to look into that. We have to find out about that. That's what the Inspector General is about. Your previous guest mentioned the investigation by Congress, but at least I didn't know about this text message. Stzrok wasn't asked about it. If that text message exists and is authentic, it should have been in the hands of the people who are asking the questions. Strzrok may have to be called back now to answer questions under oath about what he meant when he said "we have a leak strategy". I doubt that he will say under oath, "it was intended to ensure that there are no leaks." That just doesn't pass the giggle test.

Host: Why aren't more people outraged about this?

Professor Dershowitz: Because everyone is taking sides. It is so dangerous to every American. Today it's Trump they're after. Tomorrow it could be Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton and the day after tomorrow it could be you and me. That's why every civil libertarian, Democrat and Republican has to be concerned about government by leak. We want full disclosure. We want a lot of classified information to be disclosed. But there are proper ways of disclosing this. Do you know who is at fault for this more than anyone else? Comey. He leaked information and laundered it through a professor at Columbia Law School. Shame on that professor and shame on Comey. If Comey didn't have the courage to stand up in front of a TV camera and say, look I feel so strongly about this that I'm going to give you this information. But no, he snuck the information through a law professor who collaborated with him in getting the information and causing the appointment of a special counsel without having the courage of his conviction to stand up. That's what a civil libertarian would do. That's what a patriotic American would do.

 

[Andy Capp]

If some people (like you) do that, and assuming your goal is to fully understand the Mueller investigation, then they are being irrational. The platform/network is irrelevant. The actual source, as I already pointed out to you, is the person speaking and giving his views. In the most recent case, it was John Dowd, former attorney to Donald Trump.

TLDR: distinguish between "platform" and "source" and you will get closer to reality.



Only for people with closed minds. Even you, I believe, can open your mind to information from sources (NOT platforms) you disagree with.



This could be the crux of the issue. Perhaps you have such hatred for Trump that you disregard anything and everything that anyone ever associated with Trump has to say. That would be something you should work on.

And by the way, a person with your reading comprehension shouldn't argue semantics with me. It has both meanings but the sense in which I was using it comes first for some strange, unknown, indeterminate reason, hm?
Source: "a point of origin or procurement", "one that supplies information" source: Merriam Webster

To wit:

(Regarding new revelations of Peter Stzrok's "media leak strategy")


Host: Professor, does it bother you that a law enforcement agency would leak damaging and in some cases classified information about targets of their investigations? Why would you want to live in a country where that happens?

Professor Dershowitz:

I've been bothered by this since J. Edgar Hoover. He notoriously lived by leaks. He would threaten political enemies that he would leak information about their sex lives and about their private lives. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. When an FBI agent or a prosecutor leaks grand jury material, it's criminal.

What we need now is an objective investigation by the Inspector General, by the Office of Professional Responsibility into these leaks and into what was meant by the text message that said "we have a leak strategy". It's hard to believe that he meant we have a strategy to stop leaks. It seems much more plausible that he was talking about a strategy to leak things selectively to the media in order to achieve the goal he had set out for himself, namely, to have an "insurance policy" against electing a man who he thought was dangerous to the country. He had a right to his opinion. He had a right to vote any way he wanted. He doesn't have a right to try to influence the outcome of the election through leaks.

I'm taken by the point that he may not have leaked before the election. WE have to look into that. We have to find out about that. That's what the Inspector General is about. Your previous guest mentioned the investigation by Congress, but at least I didn't know about this text message. Stzrok wasn't asked about it. If that text message exists and is authentic, it should have been in the hands of the people who are asking the questions. Strzrok may have to be called back now to answer questions under oath about what he meant when he said "we have a leak strategy". I doubt that he will say under oath, "it was intended to ensure that there are no leaks." That just doesn't pass the giggle test.

Host: Why aren't more people outraged about this?

Professor Dershowitz: Because everyone is taking sides. It is so dangerous to every American. Today it's Trump they're after. Tomorrow it could be Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton and the day after tomorrow it could be you and me. That's why every civil libertarian, Democrat and Republican has to be concerned about government by leak. We want full disclosure. We want a lot of classified information to be disclosed. But there are proper ways of disclosing this. Do you know who is at fault for this more than anyone else? Comey. He leaked information and laundered it through a professor at Columbia Law School. Shame on that professor and shame on Comey. If Comey didn't have the courage to stand up in front of a TV camera and say, look I feel so strongly about this that I'm going to give you this information. But no, he snuck the information through a law professor who collaborated with him in getting the information and causing the appointment of a special counsel without having the courage of his conviction to stand up. That's what a civil libertarian would do. That's what a patriotic American would do.

Edit: note this is all still coming only from Meadows. Just more of the same from this troll.

ITT: Please note the exchange highlighted in bold.

Your mistakes are

1) thinking that I am "using" this source to make some broader point.

2) thinking the source is "Fox News". In this case, it's attorney John Dowd. I get that you don't trust him, but he's very relevant to this thread topic. It makes no difference which network he appears on.




Not to my knowledge. Cite the rule.

I learned this approach from @Joe , who posts "copy pasta" from the anti-Trump side in this thread with great regularity.

So your copy pasta is pointless ergo trolling. Go "report" yourself.

I didn't write that. I guess that's your conclusion. Is @Joe 's posting of "copy pasta" also "pointless trolling"?

I repeat, go "report" yourself.