Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
stevemagegod

My Thoughts on the Russia Conspiracy

368 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Alaric said:

Google says:

prop·a·gan·da

Well. At least you managed to Google one of the two words in "propaganda war", I guess.

I doubt you'll find the definition of a propaganda war in a dictionary or Google -- but you will find practical examples of them described online, such as the one being waged by ISIS. One defining aspect of them is a central organization, responsible for creating and disseminating their propaganda.

Hence my three questions. Which you can either answer, or you can't.
 

3 hours ago, Alaric said:

Even if you somehow believe that the Russian propaganda effort is assisting Trump, the fact is not disputed that, as POTUS, Trump is still the victim of the propaganda campaigns of various other unfriendly powers the world over... so I just don’t see how, from your perspective, the exact opposite of this is true.

North Korea exists? Well. That changes everything.

Obvious context is obvious. See: Entire thread, for details.
 

2 hours ago, Alaric said:

There’s a bit of the old Dunning-Kruger in effect here.

Said the person who thinks that a concerted information warfare attack by the Russian government, specifically designed to foment civil unrest within the United States is the same thing as individual media outlets displaying their usual political bias.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
On 11/18/2017 at 9:25 AM, Tiggs said:

Generally, that's not how it usually works. As a service provider, Perkins Coie would invoice the DNC for any amounts related to the legal work they were doing for the campaign.

Without access to those invoices, it's not possible to tell how detailed the billing breakdown was.

So are you trying to say that the DNC, though it was paying Fusion GPS directly, isn't responsible for HOW Fusion GPS came about their data? That because Fusion GPS was a firewall between the DNC and Steele, And Steele as the firewall between Fusion GPS and the Russians, that they can not be in Cahoots? There can't be any link from the DNC to the Russians because there are intermediaries?

If Don Jr, and Kushner, had used, say, a Private detective, rather then being personally involved, communicating with the Russians, that any meetings couldn't be led back to a Collusion claim? Orrrrrrrrr.... Is it only that all these guys LIED about such meetings, rather then the meetings themselves, which is the Big Deal?

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

So are you trying to say that the DNC, though it was paying Fusion GPS directly

The DNC wasn't paying Fusion GPS directly. 

DNC > Perkins Coie > Fusion GPS > Orbis(Steele)
 

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

So are you trying to say that the DNC, though it was paying Fusion GPS directly, isn't responsible for HOW Fusion GPS came about their data? That because Fusion GPS was a firewall between the DNC and Steele, And Steele as the firewall between Fusion GPS and the Russians, that they can not be in Cahoots? There can't be any link from the DNC to the Russians because there are intermediaries?

That wasn't what I was trying to say -- but I'll answer it below.

What I was trying to say is that you don't generally pay lawyers for individual pieces of work as you go. It's more like hiring an open bar. You put down a retainer, they provide drinks when you need them, and keep a running tab. You don't generally get to know where they sourced their drinks from, or how much they're paying their bar staff -- just a tally of the drinks they've served you.

Perkins Coie may have invoiced the DNC separately for the Fusion GPS work. They may have priced it into their hourly rate, as a cost of doing business (like drink prices cover all of the costs for running the open bar). Without seeing the invoices from Perkins Coie to the DNC -- who knows?

Re: responsibility -- there are two intermediate links in the chain between the DNC and Steele.

Each link in the chain is -- to use your phrase -- a firewall.

For example -- If Michael Cohen exchanged emails with members of the Russian government -- that isn't necessarily Trump exchanging emails with the Russian government, even though Cohen is Trump's lawyer. Cohen may just have been acting on his own initiative in Trump's "best interest". To prove that Trump was aware of those emails, you'd need to show evidence of that information regarding the email exchange passing between Trump and Cohen.

It's potentially possible that the DNC didn't know who Perkins Coie hired. It's also potentially possible that Perkins Coie wasn't aware that Fusion GPS subcontracted sourcing information to Orbis, depending on how that information was subsequently presented to them, and the invoice breakdown they received from Fusion GPS.

If you believe that the DNC was involved in a conspiracy with Steele to create a forged dossier, then in order to substantiate it, you'll need to evidence:

1: A member of the DNC* was aware that Orbis/Steele was working on the dossier.

2: Direct communication between said member of the DNC and Orbis/Steele discussing such, or evidence of communication of intent to create that forged dossier, up and down the chain.

You still haven't got past 1, yet, as far as I can see.


* Wild guess -- but you're going with the Queen of all Evil here, right?
 

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

If Don Jr, and Kushner, had used, say, a Private detective, rather then being personally involved, communicating with the Russians, that any meetings couldn't be led back to a Collusion claim? Orrrrrrrrr.... Is it only that all these guys LIED about such meetings, rather then the meetings themselves, which is the Big Deal?

As far as I'm aware -- if there was evidence showing that the PI had reported the offer back to Don Jr and Kushner, and they'd sent acceptance of said offer back through the PI, then it's effectively the same as them accepting it directly. Using an agent won't mask you from the consequences, providing you can show evidence of instruction to said agent.

Lying about a meeting -- unless it's during a statement under oath -- I believe is suspicious behaviour, rather than prosecutable behaviour. Not a great idea to lie to the FBI, for example, as Papadopulos would tell you. 

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the "Big Deal" with the Don Jr / Kushner / Manafort meeting is:

1 Allegedly, the lifting of sanctions were discussed at the meeting, in exchange for damaging information on Clinton. If such an offer was made, then I believe that's a breach of Federal Election Law and the Logan Act. Possibly other statutes, too -- but I'm not a lawyer.

2. No-one on the Trump team reported either the initial email, or the subsequent meeting to the FBI. Suspicious behavior, but I'm unsure about any legal requirement to report such. Again -- not a lawyer.

3. Mueller's team have issued Grand Jury Subpoenas for statements and documents about that meeting from everyone involved. Which suggests -- to me, at least -- that Mueller's team is preparing to make a case about that meeting, in front of a Grand Jury.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tiggs said:

The DNC wasn't paying Fusion GPS directly. 

DNC > Perkins Coie > Fusion GPS > Orbis(Steele)
 

That wasn't what I was trying to say -- but I'll answer it below.

What I was trying to say is that you don't generally pay lawyers for individual pieces of work as you go. It's more like hiring an open bar. You put down a retainer, they provide drinks when you need them, and keep a running tab. You don't generally get to know where they sourced their drinks from, or how much they're paying their bar staff -- just a tally of the drinks they've served you.

Perkins Coie may have invoiced the DNC separately for the Fusion GPS work. They may have priced it into their hourly rate, as a cost of doing business (like drink prices cover all of the costs for running the open bar). Without seeing the invoices from Perkins Coie to the DNC -- who knows?

Re: responsibility -- there are two intermediate links in the chain between the DNC and Steele.

Each link in the chain is -- to use your phrase -- a firewall.

For example -- If Michael Cohen exchanged emails with members of the Russian government -- that isn't necessarily Trump exchanging emails with the Russian government, even though Cohen is Trump's lawyer. Cohen may just have been acting on his own initiative in Trump's "best interest". To prove that Trump was aware of those emails, you'd need to show evidence of that information regarding the email exchange passing between Trump and Cohen.

It's potentially possible that the DNC didn't know who Perkins Coie hired. It's also potentially possible that Perkins Coie wasn't aware that Fusion GPS subcontracted sourcing information to Orbis, depending on how that information was subsequently presented to them, and the invoice breakdown they received from Fusion GPS.

Umm... I get it. The issue is deniability. Unless it can be shown that the DNC/Clinton communicated directly with Steele, or even Fusion GPS, then it can't be assumed that they knew what Fusion GPS/Steele were up to, or how they got that info.

Quote

If you believe that the DNC was involved in a conspiracy with Steele to create a forged dossier, then in order to substantiate it, you'll need to evidence:

1: A member of the DNC* was aware that Orbis/Steele was working on the dossier.

2: Direct communication between said member of the DNC and Orbis/Steele discussing such, or evidence of communication of intent to create that forged dossier, up and down the chain.

You still haven't got past 1, yet, as far as I can see.

Well, I suppose such a thing for number 1 might exist, and it might come out if there is a leak, or if it is found during an investigation. But... I think it very unlikely Mr Average Citizen is going to ever find that out on their own. Which, IMHO, is why so many politicians get away with so much. They have an army of people cleaning up after them.

I don't specifically mean to say that the DNC was part of a conspiracy with Steele and the Russians, but that this same level of "evidence" seems to be thrown up by the Evil Leftist MediaTM, on a regular basis. It just seem hypocritical to me that these tenuous links are Evidence when it involves a Trump aid/official, and are to be dismissed if applied to a Democrat.

I think my overall point is that these deals go on between lots of corporate CEOs, Celebrities, Government officials, and family members of those groups... Every day, in lots of ways, and not just with the Russians, but with Israel, China, The UK, Germany, Japan..... lots of nations. And no one writes Editorials, and exposes on those deals/meetings. It seems, to use a Clintonism, a lot of nothing burgers. 

Quote

As far as I'm aware -- if there was evidence showing that the PI had reported the offer back to Don Jr and Kushner, and they'd sent acceptance of said offer back through the PI, then it's effectively the same as them accepting it directly. Using an agent won't mask you from the consequences, providing you can show evidence of instruction to said agent.

Lying about a meeting -- unless it's during a statement under oath -- I believe is suspicious behaviour, rather than prosecutable behaviour. Not a great idea to lie to the FBI, for example, as Papadopulos would tell you. 

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the "Big Deal" with the Don Jr / Kushner / Manafort meeting is:

1 Allegedly, the lifting of sanctions were discussed at the meeting, in exchange for damaging information on Clinton. If such an offer was made, then I believe that's a breach of Federal Election Law and the Logan Act. Possibly other statutes, too -- but I'm not a lawyer.

2. No-one on the Trump team reported either the initial email, or the subsequent meeting to the FBI. Suspicious behavior, but I'm unsure about any legal requirement to report such. Again -- not a lawyer.

3. Mueller's team have issued Grand Jury Subpoenas for statements and documents about that meeting from everyone involved. Which suggests -- to me, at least -- that Mueller's team is preparing to make a case about that meeting, in front of a Grand Jury.

I'm not 100% sure that the meeting was to drop sanctions. I thought they lured the Trump people there with a story of dirt on Hillary and THEN put forward the dropping of sanctions. But, I could be wrong here, and they knew that expectation of the meeting ahead of time.

It will be interesting to see what Mueller pulls out of the whole thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Congress is looking into who wrote checks to whom....

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/24/fusion-gps-russian-dossier-firm-paid-journalists-w/

Quote


The Nunes subpoena forced the law firm Perkins Coie to admit that the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign paid the bills. The money went from Democrats to Perkins Coie to Fusion to ex-British spy Christopher Steele. He then paid Kremlin sources for dirt on Mr. Trump. None of Mr. Steele’s core charges of collusion has been publicly confirmed.


Fusion and the House at first worked out a deal for relevant banks records. But House lawyers say they learned that Fusion withheld 112 transactions pertinent to the Russia probe.

Quote

The suspect transactions, House lawyers say, deal with two Russia issues. One is the dossier. The other is Fusion’s payments from another law firm, BakerHostetler. That money came from the Russian firm Prevezon Holdings which is lobbying Washington to repeal a law that brought stiff economic sanctions on President Vladimir Putin’s regime.

Quote

Fusion co-founder Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, had Mr. Steele brief a number of liberal press sites in Washington during the election.

The House court filings mentioned two who wrote stories on dossier dirt––Yahoo News and Mother Jones.

Fusion’s specialty is seeding its opposition research into news stories, a modus operandi highlighted by a 2011 interview with co-founder Peter Fritsch,” the House attorneys said. Mr. Fritsch is also a former Wall Street Journal reporter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Umm... I get it. The issue is deniability. Unless it can be shown that the DNC/Clinton communicated directly with Steele, or even Fusion GPS, then it can't be assumed that they knew what Fusion GPS/Steele were up to, or how they got that info.

Pretty much.
 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Well, I suppose such a thing for number 1 might exist, and it might come out if there is a leak, or if it is found during an investigation. But... I think it very unlikely Mr Average Citizen is going to ever find that out on their own. Which, IMHO, is why so many politicians get away with so much. They have an army of people cleaning up after them.

If there is evidence for 1, then it will come out, eventually.
 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I don't specifically mean to say that the DNC was part of a conspiracy with Steele and the Russians, but that this same level of "evidence" seems to be thrown up by the Evil Leftist MediaTM, on a regular basis. It just seem hypocritical to me that these tenuous links are Evidence when it involves a Trump aid/official, and are to be dismissed if applied to a Democrat.

I think my overall point is that these deals go on between lots of corporate CEOs, Celebrities, Government officials, and family members of those groups... Every day, in lots of ways, and not just with the Russians, but with Israel, China, The UK, Germany, Japan..... lots of nations. And no one writes Editorials, and exposes on those deals/meetings. It seems, to use a Clintonism, a lot of nothing burgers. 

The main difference here is that Russia ran an illegal operation to influence the Presidential election.

What the media reports matters much less than what can be proven in a courtroom.
 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I'm not 100% sure that the meeting was to drop sanctions. I thought they lured the Trump people there with a story of dirt on Hillary and THEN put forward the dropping of sanctions. But, I could be wrong here, and they knew that expectation of the meeting ahead of time.

The email didn't mention sanctions. Again -- not a lawyer -- but I suspect just an acceptance of the offer without quid pro quo is still a breach of Federal Election laws.
 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

It will be interesting to see what Mueller pulls out of the whole thing.

Mueller's main brief is to investigate coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.
 
CNN keeps a decent running tally of what Mueller's team has been up to, here.

None of his team's activity looks like they believe Steele engaged in creating a fake dossier.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dang this thread got 15 pages. Itll take me a while to read through it haha.

But apparently Flynn was found guilty. But nothing on Russia. So once again the Russia story has been Debunked. But once again how did Hillary get away with so much Evidence against her scott free? Being Extremely Careless with the Nation's intelligence on a unsecured is still a crime. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, stevemagegod said:

Dang this thread got 15 pages. Itll take me a while to read through it haha.

But apparently Flynn was found guilty. But nothing on Russia. So once again the Russia story has been Debunked. But once again how did Hillary get away with so much Evidence against her scott free? Being Extremely Careless with the Nation's intelligence on a unsecured is still a crime. 

It's probable that the Libyan slave-traders are Hillary fans since she made slavery possible. The slaves....not so much.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paranormal Panther said:

It's probable that the Libyan slave-traders are Hillary fans since she made slavery possible. The slaves....not so much.

Comey did say they needed a "Reasonable Prosecutor" whatever that means..... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, stevemagegod said:

Comey did say they needed a "Reasonable Prosecutor" whatever that means..... 

Maybe it means that he recognizes his own limitations. Your guess is as good as mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Maybe it means that he recognizes his own limitations. Your guess is as good as mine.

I studied Criminal Justice in College there's no such thing as a Reasonable Prosecutor lol. If they want to go after you they will use every resource available. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stevemagegod said:

I studied Criminal Justice in College there's no such thing as a Reasonable Prosecutor lol. If they want to go after you they will use every resource available. 

They can indict a ham sandwich. Just ask Nancy Grace.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 5:25 PM, stevemagegod said:

But apparently Flynn was found guilty. But nothing on Russia. So once again the Russia story has been Debunked.

Huh? That's a pretty far leap to say the story has been debunked. Flynn got a hell of a plea deal and based on the plea text It sounds like he  may have worn a wire for Mueller. We're a long way from anything regarding Russia being debunked or confirmed. 

That said though the level of corruption in this administration has become blatantly obvious. 

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 5:25 PM, stevemagegod said:

But once again how did Hillary get away with so much Evidence against her scott free? Being Extremely Careless with the Nation's intelligence on a unsecured is still a crime. 

I agree whole heartedly that it seems Clinton got off due to factors that had noting to do with actual guilt or innocence. That's part of why its so important to me that we call out Trump and company on all of their corruption while they're in power. We cant continue to allow these demagogues do whatever they want just because they're "our guy". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Hmm, now Trump's lawyer is saying that a President can legally obstruct justice because of the constitution. http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/trump-john-dowd-obstruct-justice/index.html

  How is it that he is complaining about Clinton, while twisting rules to allow for corruption to go unpunished?  Do they not realize that if they set this precedence that it will aid corrupt people both past and present?

  When the president's opinions are presented to a subordinate, they aren't really opinions but orders.  If mu boss thinks my project would look better in pink, I don't go and paint it purple.  Likewise, if a president thinks that the FBI director should "let it go", how else are they supposed to take it?  If this works, I can see a lot of future presidents giving legally protected "opinions" to do things like not investigate corrupt friends (such as Clinton) and the like.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

  Hmm, now Trump's lawyer is saying that a President can legally obstruct justice because of the constitution. http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/trump-john-dowd-obstruct-justice/index.html

So...when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal?

S'funny. I seem to have heard that argument before.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

So...when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal?

S'funny. I seem to have heard that argument before.

They did reference Nixon as having tried it before.  But he quit before it was tested.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

They did reference Nixon as having tried it before.  But he quit before it was tested.

Really don't see the Supreme Court buying that argument, tbh.

If you can obstruct any investigation, you can commit any crime without legal jeopardy.

Including ordering the murder of the odd Supreme Justice or two you don't agree with.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.