Russia probes kick into high gear

[+DieChecker]

19 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Rick Gates, the business partner of Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is expected to plead guilty to new charges brought against him this week.

A person familiar with the case confirmed to NPR on Friday that Gates has been negotiating with the office of special counsel Robert Mueller to change his plea from not guilty and cooperate with investigators.

Gates is expected to appear in federal court on Friday afternoon.

According to new court documents filed in the case, he could plead guilty to two charges.

Source: NPR

The two new charges can be found here. 

I heard that Gates decided to plead guilty because he does not have the money to fight such a trial. He's not a millionaire like most of the Trump bigwigs. Even if he won, he'd go bankrupt. 

I believe the new charges are real, but I don't see "Trump", or "Russia", on any of them. Appears that these charges are being filed by Mueller entirely for "Gotcha!" reasons. Or, to bully information out of both of them. 

[+DieChecker]

3 hours ago, RAyMO said:

But in my view if Mueller completes an unhindered investigation and finds "No collusion" then that is equally as successful as finding "Collusion".

I remember hearing this kind of comment about the Election. People were saying that if Clinton, or Trump, won, they'd accept the results and move on. Except that was not the case. I imagine that it will not be the case if Trump is found not guilty of anything. A LOT of people will still be pressing for charges... Just like we see with people still demanding Clinton is indicted for her illegal storage of gov email on her private server.

[GlitterRose]

57 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I heard that Gates decided to plead guilty because he does not have the money to fight such a trial. He's not a millionaire like most of the Trump bigwigs. Even if he won, he'd go bankrupt. 

I believe the new charges are real, but I don't see "Trump", or "Russia", on any of them. Appears that these charges are being filed by Mueller entirely for "Gotcha!" reasons. Or, to bully information out of both of them. 

An interesting question is...why doesn't he have money?

An awful lot of it passed through his hands. 

Where did it go?

[preacherman76]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I heard that Gates decided to plead guilty because he does not have the money to fight such a trial. He's not a millionaire like most of the Trump bigwigs. Even if he won, he'd go bankrupt. 

I believe the new charges are real, but I don't see "Trump", or "Russia", on any of them. Appears that these charges are being filed by Mueller entirely for "Gotcha!" reasons. Or, to bully information out of both of them. 

Yep, even if Mueller makes it so bad for them they are willing to lie. Kinda like torcher.

[Tiggs]

6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Subsequent to 2010, when Manafort's involvement with the Ukraine ended.

Don't believe that would particularly matter. If GCHQ can't remotely exploit an individual phone within the US in a matter of hours, I'd be very surprised.

Also believe that they've had the ability to do so, for quite some time, prior to 2016.
 

6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

And "special arrangements" don't - or shouldn't - supersede the legal rights of US citizens.

Perhaps you missed the whole Snowden affair.

There's a hint of what I'm talking about, buried in this article.
 

6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

I'd also note - from your link - 

.... The information was picked up amid routine surveillance of Russian targets and was not part of a spying operation aimed at Trump's team, the Guardian said... ......It is understood that GCHQ was at no point carrying out a targeted operation against Trump or his team or proactively seeking information.. 

I would suggest that there is no substantiation in this article of the idea that GCHQ had remotely activated Manafort's mobile phone microphone. Indeed, it suggests the opposite. Nor does it state that Paul Manafort was one of the people that GCHQ had informed the US Government about.  

Agreed. That's definitely the official public position on the matter.

I believe that the "special arrangement" is special in the way that neither party would ever publicly admit to its existence. Not least because of those legal entanglements you mentioned earlier.

Hence -- in my entirely theoretical example -- the pressing requirement for Mueller to secure a cooperating witness.
 

6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

.. however, you DO look good in the Fedora ! 

Thank you. It took me ages to get the shape just so.

[Tiggs]

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I heard that Gates decided to plead guilty because he does not have the money to fight such a trial. He's not a millionaire like most of the Trump bigwigs. Even if he won, he'd go bankrupt. 

I believe the new charges are real, but I don't see "Trump", or "Russia", on any of them. Appears that these charges are being filed by Mueller entirely for "Gotcha!" reasons. Or, to bully information out of both of them. 

That's generally the way it works. Federal indictments lure people into exhausting their financial resources with bail arrangements, et al, until it's easier to confess than it is to continue to fight.

Mueller releasing a superseding set of charges on Friday is basically him just trolling Manafort, at this stage.

[RoofGardener]

26 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Don't believe that would particularly matter. If GCHQ can't remotely exploit an individual phone within the US in a matter of hours, I'd be very surprised.

Also believe that they've had the ability to do so, for quite some time, prior to 2016.

The vulnerable "smart phones" only came out in... umm.... around 2009 ? Something like that ? A bit late to be relevant to Manaforts involvement with the Ukranians.

In order to have their microphones activated remotely, they first had to connect to a "rogue" mobile tower... one built and operated by the security services themselves ... which would download a BIOS update command that enabled remote activation. Are we to believe that GCHQ has such towers operating in New York ? Without the FBI (or the local telecomms operators) noticing ? 

@Tiggs, on this particular topic, I fear that your mobile reception will be very poor, on the grounds that you are many hundreds of feet down a rabbit hole  

Edited February 24, 2018 by RoofGardener

[Tiggs]

58 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

The vulnerable "smart phones" only came out in... umm.... around 2009 ? Something like that ? 

Wouldn't bet your ship's cat on it. Hacker's have been exploiting phones ever since the days that 2600 Hz were the magic number.
 

58 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

In order to have their microphones activated remotely, they first had to connect to a "rogue" mobile tower... one built and operated by the security services themselves ... which would download a BIOS update command that enabled remote activation. 

There are ways to do it without the need for a rogue mobile tower.

Samsung phones, for example, regularly ping Samsung's servers for system updates for their inbuilt keyboard software, which only requires a man-in-the-middle setup somewhere along the route to proxy those requests and dispatch a fake payload to anyone they're interested in.

If, y'know, you were inclined to do so, for Queen and Country. Theoretically, and all.
 

58 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

@Tiggs, on this particular topic, I fear that your mobile reception will be very poor, on the grounds that you are many hundreds of feet down a rabbit hole  

My mobile phone reception is terrible, on the basis that I very rarely even use one.

I suspect the core difference between us is that I don't believe there's such a thing as an invulnerable network device. 

What's possible, and what's generally known in the public domain are usually two entirely different things.

[Tiggs]

Interesting article here from the WaPo, speculating on who the Hapsburg group -- the political lobbying group named in the latest Manafort indictment -- may be.

[Tiggs]

Also -- appears that the Democratic rebuttal to the Nunes Memo has just dropped -- here.

[ian hacktorp]

47 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Also -- appears that the Democratic rebuttal to the Nunes Memo has just dropped -- here.

Wow.  That is less a rebuttal than a shaky, point-by-point denial.  And a pretty sloppy one at that.

But "dropped" seems accurate, anyway.  Like "dropped" by a bear.  In the woods.

[Farmer77]

56 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Also -- appears that the Democratic rebuttal to the Nunes Memo has just dropped -- here.

I'm intrigued by the redacted section on page 5. Who was Page repeatedly contacting and what was he representing himself as? 

 

[Tiggs]

4 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Wow.  That is less a rebuttal than a shaky, point-by-point denial. 

Rebuttals are point-by-point denials. Like this post, for example.
 

4 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

And a pretty sloppy one at that.

In your opinion.
 

4 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

But "dropped" seems accurate, anyway.  Like "dropped" by a bear.  In the woods.

You'll perhaps note the lack of an accompanying "grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy" press release from the FBI, for this one.

As opposed to, say, the Nunes memo.

[ian hacktorp]

6 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Rebuttals are point-by-point denials.

Rebuttals are normally counter-arguments.  They can devolve into point-by-point denials, however, when a persuasive counter-argument is lacking...as seems to be the case here.

10 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

You'll perhaps note the lack of an accompanying "grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy" press release from the FBI, for this one.

As opposed to, say, the Nunes memo

Given that the Nunes memo paints senior members of the FBI to have criminally conspired to interfere in the 2016 election and then later bring down a duly elected president, it should be no surprise they howled like scalded dogs over its release.

Should it?

[Farmer77]

Just now, hacktorp said:

Rebuttals are normally counter-arguments.  They can devolve into point-by-point denials, however, when a persuasive counter-argument is lacking...as seems to be the case here.

This isn't an argument. Its simply presenting facts. 

6 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Given that the Nunes memo paints senior members of the FBI to have criminally conspired to interfere in the 2016 election and then later bring down a duly elected president, it should be no surprise they howled like scalded dogs over its release.

Should it?

Since the aforementioned facts dispel the innuendo in the Nunes memo, no its not a surprised that they mentioned their "grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy"

[ian hacktorp]

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

This isn't an argument. Its simply presenting facts.

Facts?  Whose facts?  What they are "presenting" are flat denials and not much else.

These guys are so deep in CYA mode, they are only trying to buy themselves a little more time at this point.

Their event horizon is fast approaching...and they know it.

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, hacktorp said:

Facts?  Whose facts?  What they are "presenting" are flat denials and not much else.

Facts,

like the fact that the investigation started before the FBI received the Steele dossier

like the fact that the FISA wasn't used to spy on the trump campaign because Page had already left the campaign

like the fact that the FISA was renewed because valuable intelligence was being gathered, as the process is supposed to work 

like the fact that the court was told about the political nature of Steeles benefactors 

You know facts that dispel all the quite laughable  innuendo which the WH and their propaganda machine spent weeks spreading before releasing that absolute joke which was the Nunes memo. 

[Tiggs]

Just now, hacktorp said:

Rebuttals are normally counter-arguments.  They can devolve into point-by-point denials, however, when a persuasive counter-argument is lacking...as seems to be the case here.

If someone raises a number of important points -- then not addressing all of them will just result in being accused of not being able to.

The overarching counter-argument is simple, and is stated as the memo's very first paragraph -- that the Nunes memo was released purely for political gain, with the purpose of obstructing the ongoing investigation.
 

Just now, hacktorp said:

Given that the Nunes memo paints senior members of the FBI to have criminally conspired to interfere in the 2016 election and then later bring down a duly elected president, it should be no surprise they howled like scalded dogs over its release.

Should it?

It should, however, be utterly damning that the current Director of the FBI -- Christopher Wray, appointed by Trump in 2017, and therefore not mentioned in the Nunes Memo -- would authorize that press release.

The rebuttal memo entirely backs up the FBI's contention.

Which makes it "he said, they said".

And the guy leading the "he said" side is already on record as coordinating with the White House to leak misleading information about the very same investigation.

Not a particularly difficult choice for any neutral to make, I suspect.

[+and-then]

On 2/21/2018 at 4:47 PM, Lilly said:

Or, Mr Mueller is simply *throwing* with the hope that it does? 

This remains: "Show me the money" (aka the evidence of Trump's criminal collusion with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 election). 

I'm waiting....still.

It's beginning to look like Manafort is being nailed down so hard that he'll be willing to make stuff up to get himself off.  If he does, I hope he REALLY gets nailed.

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, and then said:

It's beginning to look like Manafort is being nailed down so hard that he'll be willing to make stuff up to get himself off.  If he does, I hope he REALLY gets nailed.

This seems to be a popular mantra from the Trump supporters as of late.  

My more cynical side wants to say , just come out and admit that you will never concede your dear leader has done anything wrong. 

 

[ExpandMyMind]

Wow. Nunes' memo and all the conspiracy theories derived from it were just slaughtered. 

Sort of comical how closely it reflects the left/right online debates.

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, hacktorp said:

Rebuttals are normally counter-arguments.  They can devolve into point-by-point denials, however, when a persuasive counter-argument is lacking...as seems to be the case here.

Given that the Nunes memo paints senior members of the FBI to have criminally conspired to interfere in the 2016 election and then later bring down a duly elected president, it should be no surprise they howled like scalded dogs over its release.

Should it?

And rebuttals that are FOS are very easy to rebut themselves which Nunes has already done.  Schiff released a pile of democrat garbage that was easily couttered and the dems look even lower to all but the far left and morons who won't read either memo anyways but will still have whatever opinion heir masters order.

[+DieChecker]

28 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Wow. Nunes' memo and all the conspiracy theories derived from it were just slaughtered. 

Sort of comical how closely it reflects the left/right online debates.

Well, I am reading it and it does seem to rebut most of the Republicans points.

However... When the Nunes memo came out I remember hearing (from both sides), where are the supporting documents? And the same applies here too. It is easy to say that DOJ was clear about Steele, and his bias and his works origins, in submitting his data for consideration, but unless there is an attached transcript, or something similar, then how can we really know if the truth is coming from the Majority (as they are called in the memo), or from the Democrats?

Edited February 25, 2018 by DieChecker

[GlitterRose]

4 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Well, I am reading it and it does seem to rebut most of the Republicans points.

However... When the Nunes memo came out I remember hearing (from both sides), where are the supporting documents? And the same applies here too. It is easy to say that DOJ was clear about Steele, and his bias and his works origins, in submitting his data for consideration, but unless there is an attached transcript, or something similar, then how can we really know if the truth is coming from the Majority (as they are called in the memo), or from the Democrats?

They do source it. 

[Tiggs]

10 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Well, I am reading it and it does seem to rebut most of the Republicans points.

However... When the Nunes memo came out I remember hearing (from both sides), where are the supporting documents? And the same applies here too. It is easy to say that DOJ was clear about Steele, and his bias and his works origins, in submitting his data for consideration, but unless there is an attached transcript, or something similar, then how can we really know if the truth is coming from the Majority (as they are called in the memo), or from the Democrats?

The text from the FISA warrant that talks about Steele is quoted in the rebuttal memo.

If you think the Democrats are brazen enough to invent a quote from the FISA document -- then you're not going to believe a FISA document produced from the FBI or DOJ with the same quote either, are you?