nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Indictments were handed down against GRU for the hacking. So if that ain't good enough for you what is?
Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
Indictments were handed down against GRU for the hacking. So if that ain't good enough for you what is?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
i would have a twinge of sympathy if i had never seen you lol something you disagreed with
but yeah generally lol is pretty weak and pathetic sauce...some of my favorites around seem rather fond of that sauce
Sound reasons aren't getting source data from Russian Oligarchs?
Sound reasons aren't meeting with the Russian lawyer before and after the Trump tower meeting?
Sound reasons aren't the Clinton connections to other Oligarchs which led to the personal/foundational benefit?
I'm not looking for sympathy when dealing with a simple person (not you obviously).
I have always raised a healthy degree of skepticism to anything that is thrust feverently in front of my face. Always important to ask yourself, as littlefinger does, imagine the worst of intentions of any person and think if that could have any impact on current decisions.
To just dismiss that the government would love to make those that expose their corruption as the 'bad guys' to save their own ass is well a nice thought.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
perhaps we can strike up an anti lol alliance
Are any of these sound reasons sir?
Also, should Adam schiff recuse himself based on his never reported meetings with simpson?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I haven't found anything sound about them. But I am always interested in good information.
I believe rules for recusal exist for prosecutors and judges. I'm not sure they do for politicians. I think the political arena is a bit different. Things are inherently partisan there and we have to evaluate what people say and do in a partisan arena on that basis.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
the entrepreneurial ecosystem of the swamp
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...rges-give-roger-stone-publicity-boost/582337/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...rges-give-roger-stone-publicity-boost/582337/
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
The Times takes a look at what the transcripts reveal about the August 2 meeting between Manafartov, Gates and Kilimnik.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/10/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
According to the transcript, which was heavily redacted, Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kilimnik repeatedly communicated about a so-called peace plan for Ukraine starting in early August 2016, while Mr. Manafort was still running Mr. Trump’s campaign, and continuing into 2018, months after Mr. Manafort had been charged by the special counsel’s office with a litany of crimes related to his work in the country. The prosecutors claim that Mr. Manafort misled them about those talks and other interactions with Mr. Kilimnik.
Pressed by the judge at Monday’s hearing to say why Mr. Manafort’s alleged lies mattered, Mr. Weissmann gave a broad hint about the thrust of the investigation.
“This goes to the larger view of what we think is going on, and what we think is the motive here,” Mr. Weissmann said. “This goes, I think, very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating.”
Mr. Weissmann’s cryptic comments suggest that the special counsel’s investigation — which Mr. Trump has sought to dismiss as a witch hunt and which the acting attorney general, Matthew G. Whitaker, has said will wrap up soon — is still pursuing the central question of whether there was some kind of deal between Russia and the Trump campaign.
To date, prosecutions by the special counsel have skirted that question. They have laid out Russia’s hacking, leaking and social media manipulation, most of it in favor of Mr. Trump. They have charged multiple Trump aides with lying, including the president’s first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, who admitted misleading the F.B.I. about his discussions with the Russian ambassador about sanctions.
Mr. Trump’s longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr. was indicted last month on charges of lying to Congress about his efforts to contact WikiLeaks, which released tens of thousands of Democratic emails stolen by the Russians.
Senator Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, a Republican who is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CBS News on Thursday that, based on the evidence they have seen so far, the committee’s investigators “don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia.”
But Mr. Weissmann’s remarks seem to suggest that for the special counsel, at least, that avenue of inquiry is still alive.
The sanctions have inflicted substantial pain on the Russian economy. As a candidate and a new president, Mr. Trump seemed skeptical that such punishment was necessary or effective.
As Mr. Trump took office, some State Department officials described worrying inquiries that suggested the White House might be preparing to precipitously drop the sanctions. And various intermediaries floated proposals they said would end the sporadic combat in eastern Ukraine between Russian-funded separatist fighters and Ukrainian forces trying to hold back the loss of more territory.
Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s longtime fixer, told The New York Times that he left a sealed envelope containing one such plan on Mr. Flynn’s White House desk.
Mr. Kilimnik, meanwhile, was trying to use his extensive ties to Mr. Manafort to advance another. It envisioned the return of Viktor F. Yanukovych, a pro-Russia politician who had risen to the presidency of Ukraine in 2010 with the help of Mr. Manafort, who was paid tens of millions of dollars for his efforts.
The first discussion between Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kilimnik cited by the prosecutors took place on Aug. 2, 2016, at the Grand Havana Room in Manhattan, and also included Rick Gates, Mr. Manafort’s deputy on the Trump campaign and during his Ukraine work. Mr. Weissmann noted that Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates tried to avoid drawing attention at that meeting, leaving separately from Mr. Kilimnik.
“That meeting and what happened at that meeting is of significance to the special counsel,” Mr. Weissmann said at the hearing.
Mr. Manafort initially told prosecutors he had dismissed Mr. Kilimnik’s proposal out of hand, Mr. Weissmann said. In fact, according to the transcript, Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kilimnik talked about the proposal again in December 2016; in January 2017, when Mr. Kilimnik was in Washington for Mr. Trump’s inauguration; and again in Madrid the next month.
Mr. Weissmann noted that those talks went forward despite the “enormous amount of attention” in the United States at the time to contacts between Russians and Trump associates.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson seemed to agree with prosecutors that whether Mr. Manafort lied about his contacts with Mr. Kilimnik was important, saying at one point, “I am, actually, particularly concerned about this particular alleged false statement.”
During the hearing, prosecutors suggested that Mr. Manafort was to be a spokesman in the United States, apparently for Mr. Kilimnik’s plan to divide Ukraine.
“If he were the spokesperson, and denominated as such within the United States,” Mr. Weissmann said, “he would also have access to senior people.” He then broke off, saying, “That’s as far as I can go.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/10/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
According to the transcript, which was heavily redacted, Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kilimnik repeatedly communicated about a so-called peace plan for Ukraine starting in early August 2016, while Mr. Manafort was still running Mr. Trump’s campaign, and continuing into 2018, months after Mr. Manafort had been charged by the special counsel’s office with a litany of crimes related to his work in the country. The prosecutors claim that Mr. Manafort misled them about those talks and other interactions with Mr. Kilimnik.
Pressed by the judge at Monday’s hearing to say why Mr. Manafort’s alleged lies mattered, Mr. Weissmann gave a broad hint about the thrust of the investigation.
“This goes to the larger view of what we think is going on, and what we think is the motive here,” Mr. Weissmann said. “This goes, I think, very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating.”
Mr. Weissmann’s cryptic comments suggest that the special counsel’s investigation — which Mr. Trump has sought to dismiss as a witch hunt and which the acting attorney general, Matthew G. Whitaker, has said will wrap up soon — is still pursuing the central question of whether there was some kind of deal between Russia and the Trump campaign.
To date, prosecutions by the special counsel have skirted that question. They have laid out Russia’s hacking, leaking and social media manipulation, most of it in favor of Mr. Trump. They have charged multiple Trump aides with lying, including the president’s first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, who admitted misleading the F.B.I. about his discussions with the Russian ambassador about sanctions.
Mr. Trump’s longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr. was indicted last month on charges of lying to Congress about his efforts to contact WikiLeaks, which released tens of thousands of Democratic emails stolen by the Russians.
Senator Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, a Republican who is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CBS News on Thursday that, based on the evidence they have seen so far, the committee’s investigators “don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia.”
But Mr. Weissmann’s remarks seem to suggest that for the special counsel, at least, that avenue of inquiry is still alive.
The sanctions have inflicted substantial pain on the Russian economy. As a candidate and a new president, Mr. Trump seemed skeptical that such punishment was necessary or effective.
As Mr. Trump took office, some State Department officials described worrying inquiries that suggested the White House might be preparing to precipitously drop the sanctions. And various intermediaries floated proposals they said would end the sporadic combat in eastern Ukraine between Russian-funded separatist fighters and Ukrainian forces trying to hold back the loss of more territory.
Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s longtime fixer, told The New York Times that he left a sealed envelope containing one such plan on Mr. Flynn’s White House desk.
Mr. Kilimnik, meanwhile, was trying to use his extensive ties to Mr. Manafort to advance another. It envisioned the return of Viktor F. Yanukovych, a pro-Russia politician who had risen to the presidency of Ukraine in 2010 with the help of Mr. Manafort, who was paid tens of millions of dollars for his efforts.
The first discussion between Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kilimnik cited by the prosecutors took place on Aug. 2, 2016, at the Grand Havana Room in Manhattan, and also included Rick Gates, Mr. Manafort’s deputy on the Trump campaign and during his Ukraine work. Mr. Weissmann noted that Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates tried to avoid drawing attention at that meeting, leaving separately from Mr. Kilimnik.
“That meeting and what happened at that meeting is of significance to the special counsel,” Mr. Weissmann said at the hearing.
Mr. Manafort initially told prosecutors he had dismissed Mr. Kilimnik’s proposal out of hand, Mr. Weissmann said. In fact, according to the transcript, Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kilimnik talked about the proposal again in December 2016; in January 2017, when Mr. Kilimnik was in Washington for Mr. Trump’s inauguration; and again in Madrid the next month.
Mr. Weissmann noted that those talks went forward despite the “enormous amount of attention” in the United States at the time to contacts between Russians and Trump associates.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson seemed to agree with prosecutors that whether Mr. Manafort lied about his contacts with Mr. Kilimnik was important, saying at one point, “I am, actually, particularly concerned about this particular alleged false statement.”
During the hearing, prosecutors suggested that Mr. Manafort was to be a spokesman in the United States, apparently for Mr. Kilimnik’s plan to divide Ukraine.
“If he were the spokesperson, and denominated as such within the United States,” Mr. Weissmann said, “he would also have access to senior people.” He then broke off, saying, “That’s as far as I can go.”
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Jeffrey Toobin on Stone, Corsi and Credico.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/02/18/roger-stones-and-jerome-corsis-time-in-the-barrel
My favorite part:
The most dramatic—and certainly the weirdest—part of Stone’s trial will probably involve the testimony of Randy Credico. Stone and Credico met more than a decade ago, when they were both advocating for marijuana legalization in New York. But the relationship has always been combustible—Credico is a man of the left and was a fervent Bernie Sanders supporter in 2016—and Stone and Credico are now estranged. “I don’t know why Roger gave up my name to them as his source about WikiLeaks,” Credico told me recently. “Why did he buckle without even getting a ****ing subpoena? He gave up a name. That’s called ratting.” In addition, Credico has found his dealings with Mueller’s office daunting. “Those people are like Columbo and Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot combined, and you can’t ****ing lie to them,” he said. “Why would you try? They have all the e-mails. They know what happened.”
The indictment states that, on several occasions, Stone told Credico that he should “do a ‘Frank Pentangeli’ ” before the Intelligence Committee “in order to avoid contradicting Stone’s testimony.” As the indictment explains, “Frank Pentangeli is a character in the film ‘The Godfather: Part II,’ who testifies before a congressional committee and falsely claims not to know critical information that he does in fact know.” “But this is all wrong. Randy is an impressionist,” Stone told me, referring to Credico’s days as a comedian. “He does impressions. I was asking him to do his Frank Pentangeli impression. I wasn’t telling Randy to lie.”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/02/18/roger-stones-and-jerome-corsis-time-in-the-barrel
My favorite part:
The most dramatic—and certainly the weirdest—part of Stone’s trial will probably involve the testimony of Randy Credico. Stone and Credico met more than a decade ago, when they were both advocating for marijuana legalization in New York. But the relationship has always been combustible—Credico is a man of the left and was a fervent Bernie Sanders supporter in 2016—and Stone and Credico are now estranged. “I don’t know why Roger gave up my name to them as his source about WikiLeaks,” Credico told me recently. “Why did he buckle without even getting a ****ing subpoena? He gave up a name. That’s called ratting.” In addition, Credico has found his dealings with Mueller’s office daunting. “Those people are like Columbo and Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot combined, and you can’t ****ing lie to them,” he said. “Why would you try? They have all the e-mails. They know what happened.”
The indictment states that, on several occasions, Stone told Credico that he should “do a ‘Frank Pentangeli’ ” before the Intelligence Committee “in order to avoid contradicting Stone’s testimony.” As the indictment explains, “Frank Pentangeli is a character in the film ‘The Godfather: Part II,’ who testifies before a congressional committee and falsely claims not to know critical information that he does in fact know.” “But this is all wrong. Randy is an impressionist,” Stone told me, referring to Credico’s days as a comedian. “He does impressions. I was asking him to do his Frank Pentangeli impression. I wasn’t telling Randy to lie.”
57Brave
Well-known member
Following a two-year investigation that included hundreds of interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee inquiry is reportedly starting to wind down after finding "no direct evidence" of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to NBC News.
Democrats and Republicans already have different conclusions about what that actually means, but here's what a former federal prosecutor says it means: Nothing. Former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg told MSNBC's Katy Tur Tuesday that it's exceedingly rare to find "direct evidence" of conspiracy. "In fact, in the dozens and dozens of cases I tried to a jury, only once ever did I have direct evidence of a conspiracy," Rosenberg said. "You almost never see that."
Rosenberg also noted that circumstantial evidence is "every bit as important" as direct evidence. "So to say that there's no direct evidence of a conspiracy is really not all that damning on the facts of the case," he added.
Senate Intelligence Chair Richard Burr is certainly handing Trump a straw to grasp at when he says, "We don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia." But Democrats on the panel also strongly disagree with that assessment of the evidence.
"There's never been a campaign in American history ... [where] people affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did," noted the ranking member of the panel, Sen. Mark Warner.
Besides, the Senate panel never actually set out to find criminal wrongdoing—that’s the charge of special counsel Robert Mueller.
As one Democratic aide told NBC, "We were never going to find a contract signed in blood saying, 'Hey Vlad, we're going to collude.’"
or as some would say "Sergei in the server room with the screwdriver"
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I dont think any one expected a signed MOU between the campaign and the russians... absence of a signed MOU is hardly exculpatory
we already know Manafartov sent private polling data to the Russians and at the same meeting was given a Ukrainian peace plan
and Stone worked directly or indirectly with WikiLeaks to weaponize the stolen emails GRU gave them
we already know Manafartov sent private polling data to the Russians and at the same meeting was given a Ukrainian peace plan
and Stone worked directly or indirectly with WikiLeaks to weaponize the stolen emails GRU gave them
Open and shut...
More than enough evidence to bring our country to a standstill for 2.5 years.
More than enough reason to defaud a FISA court.
More than enough for a senior member of the house intelligence committee to lie to the american people.
57Brave
Well-known member
country at a standstill you say ?
Hmmm -- yesterday you were bragging how much has been accomplished
Me thinks you are fulla ****
the rest of what you say is what you were saying the Nunes memo or whatever it was called would clear up once and for all
January 2018. 13 months ago
Hmmm -- yesterday you were bragging how much has been accomplished
Me thinks you are fulla ****
the rest of what you say is what you were saying the Nunes memo or whatever it was called would clear up once and for all
January 2018. 13 months ago
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Facts that are no longer in dispute: On August 2, 2016, while still chairman of the Trump campaign, Pavel Manafartov handed over private polling data that the Trump campaign paid a lot of money for. He handed this over to Russian spy Konstantin Kilimnik and asked that it be shared with certain parties in Russia. Kilimnik in turn gave him a so-called "peace plan" for Ukraine.
Questions: Why would Manafartov hand over this polling data? What was his motivation? Why would he think this might be of value to the Russians? What did he think they would do with the data?
Questions: Why would Manafartov hand over this polling data? What was his motivation? Why would he think this might be of value to the Russians? What did he think they would do with the data?