RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016 US ELECTION & SPIN-OFF INVESTIGATIONS

[HairOfTheDog]

Another liar connected to this case got a month in the slammer, George deserves that, at the very least.

Based on the content of the filing, I think Papadopoulos will get at least as much time as Alex van der Zwaan and maybe the full 6 months.  

Mueller didn't recommend an exact sentence length, but he did recommend up to 6 months and a $9,500 fine.  That seems fitting and even a little generous, to me.

The judge will hand down the sentence on Friday, September 7^th.

[Fry Guy]

I am still waiting for the Russian collusion not crimes about lying.

[Duchess]

I am still waiting for the Russian collusion not crimes about lying.

Special Counsel Mueller is working on it.

We should probably be referring to it as conspiracy rather than collusion.

[Fry Guy]

I thought it was supposed to be collusion and in fact I thought it was coined as such for 2 years.

[Duchess]

I thought it was supposed to be collusion and in fact I thought it was coined as such for 2 years.

I could be wrong on this and I should be corrected if I am but I think it has been the media who have used the term collusion. I see the legal community use the term conspiracy in regards to what we are discussing.

[Fry Guy]

I could be wrong too.
I believe the first time it was coined was by Robby Mook. I think the push was Russian collusion and that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russian Government to subvert the election process for the 2016 US elections and steal the election.
I understand after this ball was picked up and run with that some of the legal minds on the Right identified that collusion was not a crime then the "charge" transformed to conspiracy but the horse had bolted and any reference to this narrative is invariably Russian collusion not Russian conspiracy. But I may be wrong.

[HairOfTheDog]

I thought it was supposed to be collusion and in fact I thought it was coined as such for 2 years.

I could be wrong on this and I should be corrected if I am but I think it has been the media who have used the term collusion. I see the legal community use the term conspiracy in regards to what we are discussing.

The media and the politicians are using the word 'collusion', especially President Trump.  "No collusion!".  

The President's spokespeople have adjusted their claims regarding possible collusion by the Trump campaign as the investigation has progressed. 

They went from insisting that there was no possible collusion to insisting that there there was no clear evidence of collusion. After that, they said that whatever collusion may have taken place was either unintentional or unsuccessful.  

Last month, Kellyanne Conway said that the only actionable collusion must be "sustained, systemic, and furtive."  This week I heard one his spokespeople say that you have to be a planner to pull off conspiracy and since Trump can't plan, there's no possibility of a crime (paraphrase).

Legally, there is no crime labelled "collusion", but it's an element of the crime of "conspiracy".  

Black's Law Dictionary defines conspiracy as "a combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purposes of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators." 

Collusion is defined as as "a deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party..." (not necessarily unlawful or criminal)

So, while you can have collusion without having a criminal conspiracy,  you can't have a criminal conspiracy without some sort of collusion.  

Anyway, I think the challenge in bringing a case of conspiracy is proving that the collusion involved intent to commit a criminal act.

[Duchess]

I think the challenge in bringing a case of conspiracy is proving that the collusion involved intent to commit a criminal act.

I absolutely expect to see that proven way, waaaay beyond reasonable doubt.

[Fry Guy]

I thought it was supposed to be collusion and in fact I thought it was coined as such for 2 years.

I could be wrong on this and I should be corrected if I am but I think it has been the media who have used the term collusion. I see the legal community use the term conspiracy in regards to what we are discussing.

The media and the politicians are using the word 'collusion', especially President Trump.  "No collusion!".  

The President's spokespeople have adjusted their claims regarding possible collusion by the Trump campaign as the investigation has progressed. 

They went from insisting that there was no possible collusion to insisting that there there was no clear evidence of collusion. After that, they said that whatever collusion may have taken place was either unintentional or unsuccessful.  

Last month, Kellyanne Conway said that the only actionable collusion must be "sustained, systemic, and furtive."  This week I heard one his spokespeople say that you have to be a planner to pull off conspiracy and since Trump can't plan, there's no possibility of a crime (paraphrase).

Legally, there is no crime labelled "collusion", but it's an element of the crime of "conspiracy".  

Black's Law Dictionary defines conspiracy as "a combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purposes of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators." 

Collusion is defined as as "a deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party..." (not necessarily unlawful or criminal)

So, while you can have collusion without having a criminal conspiracy,  you can't have a criminal conspiracy without some sort of collusion.  

Anyway, I think the challenge in bringing a case of conspiracy is proving that the collusion involved intent to commit a criminal act.

Stop! You are mansplaining.

No, wait, you are female and explaining your position. I think that is okay.

I believe the adage, "Find me a man and i will find a crime". That was Stalin's handbook and now we have it with Mueller. None of this is about the narrative of Trump and his campaign being puppets of and working with Russia. This is and was always retaliation for Trump winning the election. The charges are lying to the FBI and money laundering from year before. That is Mueller being given men to find crimes to pin to them NOT a thing to do with Trump and his campaign collaborating/colluding/conspiring with Russia to steal the election.

However if anyone cared to look the other direction...Awan gave classified information to Pakistan, Hillary gave classified info from her servers to the Chinese, Feinstein had a Chinese Spy working for her, Huma and Jarrett have strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Barrack Obama was going to be more flexible after his Presidency to help out Russia.

Collaboration. Conspiracy. Collusion. The projection from the Democrats is astounding.

IF the Democrats do not win the house and senate AND Trump can put them under te same scrunity as they have put him under....they are all completely fucked.

Alternatively, they win the house and senate and impeach 45. They then get Pence who is at least establishment and will play ball somewhat.

[HairOfTheDog]

I think the challenge in bringing a case of conspiracy is proving that the collusion involved intent to commit a criminal act.

I absolutely expect to see that proven way, waaaay beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm really interested in seeing the results of the Mueller investigation and hope the report is made public shortly after its completion.

Mueller reportedly won't break protocol and indict a sitting president if his investigators uncover criminal activity.  He's said to be a traditionalist.  

If that's true, I don't think the reasonable doubt standard would come into play unless criminal charges were filed and the case went to trial after departure or removal from office.

There is not a reasonable doubt requirement in impeachment trials.  Guilt or innocence is instead left to the individual senators to decide based on their own criteria, as I understand it. 

Impeachments are tried in the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding, and an impeachment verdict requires the concurrence of two thirds of the senators present.  Unless the Dems take back majority control of the Senate this year (which I personally doubt), impeachment seems like a long shot to me given the current political climate.

But, if there was enough evidence of serious criminal activity and the Senate actually did impeach, the extent of punishment would be removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States, according to the Constitution.

After impeachment, the President could be subject to criminal trial for the offenses in a court of law like anybody else though.  Richard Nixon avoided criminal charges after his impeachment and resignation when President Ford pardoned him.

[Duchess]

I'm really interested in seeing the results of the Mueller investigation and hope the report is made public shortly after its completion.

We've now entered the "trump has been framed" stage. We've went from NO COLLUSION! to "well, if there was, it's not illegal" to "you can't indict a sitting prez" to "HE WAS FRAMED!"

[Fry Guy]

Do you reckon Mueller is a mansplainer or a manspreader? I think he may in fact be a manteruper, that is a thing, did you know?

If he is a traditionalist, that would make him a traditionalist manteruper. I think that means he is part of the Patriarchy? What are your thoughts Hair of the Dog?

[HairOfTheDog]

Well, FryGuy, I've given your thought-provoking questions the level of ponderance they're due.

My answer is: I don't know. I've never communicated directly with Robert Mueller and he doesn't engage much publicly. So, I obviously have no basis upon which to answer your questions.

If I had to guess, I'd say that given his line of expertise and reputation..........it's unlikely that he insists on knowing things which contradict the confirmed facts, or that he presumes to read people's minds or offer lessons on how they should think, or that he speaks to women in a condescending / patronizing manner as a matter of routine.

And, since he clearly isn't needy for attention/validation or easily flapped when criticized, I'd bet money that he wouldn't paint himself a victim and become obsessed over being mocked for something as benign as mansplaining in any case. He seems much too mentally and emotionally grounded for that, to me.

If I ever do meet the man, I'll report back as to whether my guesses were accurate or not.

[HairOfTheDog]

I'm really interested in seeing the results of the Mueller investigation and hope the report is made public shortly after its completion.

We've now entered the "trump has been framed" stage. We've went from NO COLLUSION! to "well, if there was, it's not illegal" to "you can't indict a sitting prez" to "HE WAS FRAMED!"

I read about FOX's Jeannine Pirro making that claim during a radio interview this weekend.



Pirro is the female version of Rudy Giuliani in my mind.

[Fry Guy]

Well, FryGuy, I've given your thought-provoking questions the level of ponderance they're due.

My answer is: I don't know. I've never communicated directly with Robert Mueller and he doesn't engage much publicly. So, I obviously have no basis upon which to answer your questions.

If I had to guess, I'd say that given his line of expertise and reputation..........it's unlikely that he insists on knowing things which contradict the confirmed facts, or that he presumes to read people's minds or offer lessons on how they should think, or that he speaks to women in a condescending / patronizing manner as a matter of routine.

And, since he clearly isn't needy for attention/validation or easily flapped when criticized, I'd bet money that he wouldn't paint himself a victim and become obsessed over being mocked for something as benign as mansplaining in any case. He seems much too mentally and emotionally grounded for that, to me.

If I ever do meet the man, I'll report back as to whether my guesses were accurate or not.

I believe I can help you with your assessment today so you will not have to speculate as to your accuracy.

You seem to be drawing together more and more elements as to what a mansplainer is, and have coined me a mansplainer. So if we see if your assessment of me had any merit to begin with based off these things then we can see if it is a substantive claim or simply a load of bullshit you throw around because you are a snowflake and deserving of being mocked ²⁴⁄₇ on this forum.

"I'd say that given his line of expertise and reputation..........it's unlikely that he insists on knowing things which contradict the confirmed facts"

"Confirmed facts?" You say what have you posted which is confirmed facts that I have contradicted. When answering this remember things like weapons of mass destruction which were "Confirmed facts". You base "confirmed" facts by the things you are told are confirmed facts and by sources you believe.

The truth is that you are not the font of all knowledge and like all of us are not entirely impartial and anyone reading much of the mindrot you write, sees how partial you are regardless of whether YOU see it as unadulterated truth and fact.

Is Mueller similarly biased? Well he stacked the investigation team with Democrats and many gave to Obama and so maybe he was a little biased? I hate to read too much into things though.

I am running through some "facts" at the moment that you have wrong and so I am wondering what that says about your projection of your own shortcomings?

"he presumes to read people's minds"

Actually this he absolutely does.
Why do we not all remember a crime scene exactly the same, or everything we study for in an exam? Because our minds are fallible (even yours....maybe especially yours). So when he interviews people he wants to squeeze what is he doing? He comes in with a load of specific details and asks them questions. IF they get any answers wrong he cites that they lied to the FBI. He pushes to prosecute and will offer a deal for them to implicate someone else.
Were they telling the truth or genuine that they did not remember? He makes that call and "presumes to read their mind. He is the arbiter of their intent and their thoughts around this.

So Mueller does, but what about me? I think people are puzzling in general but like EVERYONE I base whatever actions and interactions I have with people and connect the dots right or wrong in assessing them. You do the same. Do I bat 100% strike rat? No one does and that is completely cool.

Ascribing my motives and intents is you doing precisely this and you know this.

"offer lessons on how they should think"

Variety is the spice of life. We should all be discriminating and get outside the bubble.

Mueller offering lessons on how people should think? Mueller is a prosecutor. He HAS to be persuasive and tell people why they should believe his version of events over the defence. He has to sell his reality hardcore. I heard that in the Manafort trial the relationship with Mueller and the jurors was a real buddy/buddy one.

Do I? I am happy to offer my take on things and I am not too shy about it. As seen above you are not either.

"he clearly isn't needy for attention/validation"

I think given his position and his need to constantly put himself up in front of strangers to make cases is clearly a want for validation and attention. At some level at least. He is not exactly withering under the stares.

I don't mind attention. I am engaging in a forum and am another voice among other disembodied voices. Do I have ANY investment in you or other disembodied voices and avatars? Well let me say not too unkindly, I would not know you if I tripped over you in the gutter.

I am simply replying to things I find interesting or engaging.

You are likely doing the same and for the same reason and yet are trying to pretend it is pathological. Do you find that weird?

"easily flapped when criticized" and "I'd bet money that he wouldn't paint himself a victim"

I Think Mueller is at the moment in an unusual position where half a country thinks the sun shines out his arse and the other half wants him burned at the stake. If he doesn't deliver for the Liberal sand Democrats he will have 100% of the country hate him and then we will see if he paints himself as a victim.

As for me I do not paint myself as a victim either. It does not mean I do not refute illegitimate claims made against me. You are not clown shoe ridiculous enough to think that there is an either or here are you. Accept everything incorrect said about you or you are painting yourself as a victim if you refute it? I enjoy engaging in back and forth.

Do you know WHY I am called Fry Guy? When I first came here I called myself Shy Guy. Some Mockers called me Fry Guy and said I worked in a fast food restaurant. They were clever and special like you. I changed my username to suit. I don't take myself that seriously and I sure as Hell don't take you seriously.

But let's turn that mirror at you. I think you are a snowflake. A member who is a man mocks you and you lose your shit and go all gender politics. Mansplaining, Manteruptions, Bropriations and manspreading is from hardcore oppression peddlers on the far Left. These are the very definition of Snowflake.

"become obsessed over being mocked for something as benign as mansplaining"

Mueller could well be doing this over hurt feelings over a golf course dispute or being passed over for AG.

I do not give a damn if some snowflake who I see as a dog with pink hair and a disembodied string of text says. Do you imagine I would? Why is that? You think I read too much into your mind you tell class how you arrive at that conclusion without.....reading too much into MY mind. Hilarious hypocrisy and projection.

Whilst you are at it tell me if you see how "A member who is a man mocks you and you lose your shit and go all gender politics. Mansplaining, Manteruptions, Bropriations and manspreading is from hardcore oppression peddlers on the far Left." is worth bringing up at EVERY available instant to mock you. I mean you earned it.

So it looks like your reading of Mueller is off and you reading of me was far from accurate.

In fact it looks suspiciously like you may have been fully projecting all your flaws to me. I think that is hilarious. Keep at it Snowflake. You are becoming more of a internet snowflake than Bullet was.

[HairOfTheDog]

Manfort Trial 2

The second Manafort trial, to go down in DC, has been delayed until September 24^th to give his defense attorneys more time to prepare.

Manafort faces charges of failing to register as a foreign agent, money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Prosecutors have said they expect to take 10 to 12 trial days to present their case. The defense has said its response could take three or four days, if it decides to call witnesses at all.

Judge Jackson announced plans to exclude the press and public from jury selection. She said she intends to conduct individual questioning of potential jurors in the jury room with prosecutors from Mueller's office, the defense team and the defendant present.

Before the Alexandria, Virginia trial, Manafort's defense filed a motion seeking to move that case to Richmond or Roanoke. The judge in that case denied the request and the prosecutors and defense attorneys were able to agree upon jury in one day.  

Manafort's attorneys are again requesting a change of venue for the second trial, but it's unlikely to be granted.  The media coverage is mostly national, not just local.  Judge Jackson did say she expects it take longer to seat a jury in DC because of the exposure from the first trial.  

I don't think the prosecutors in the Virginia financial crimes case have announced whether they intend to retry Manafort on the charges upon which the jury hung yet.

Ref:  http//www.politico.com/story/2018/08/28/manafort-trial-jury-selection-press-799035

[Maggot]

I'm surprised they don't try and take it to New York. Plenty of liberal judges there.

[HairOfTheDog]

New Subpoena

Jerome Corsi is a conspiracy theorist who worked with Trump to propagate the bullshit 'birther theory' claiming that Obama was born in Kenya, probably a Muslim, possibly an enemy of the state and all kinds of other idiocy.  In fact, Corsi literally wrote the book on it.


^ The 3 Stooges of Conspiracy Theories:  Roger Stone, Alex Jones, Jerome Corsi

Corsi has also worked closely with Roger Stone and Infowars host Alex Jones and was the DC correspondent for Jones's Infowars conspiracy program last year.  

Today Corsi's attorney announced that Corsi has been subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. on Friday as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.  Corsi will fully comply with the Mueller team’s subpoena, according to attorney David Gray.

Questions have long swirled about Stone's possible interactions with WikiLeaks and hacker Guccifer 2.0 during the 2016 campaign, when both entities were releasing Democratic emails that had been hacked by Russian intelligence agents.

A spokesperson for the special counsel’s office declined to comment.  Mueller's office has not and is not commenting on the ongoing investigation.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-court...te-n906756

[Maggot]

 .........Mueller may need more "special" prosecutors. Is Ivanka an alien born on the moon and secretly groomed in a cave in Mongolia?

[HairOfTheDog]

I'm certain that Roger Stone isn't laughing about this latest news. Corsi is a long-time professional associate of self-described political 'dirty trickster' Roger Stone, including during Trump's 2016 campaign.

Roger bragged about having contact with those involved in hacking the U.S. political system and 'predicted' that emails harmful to Hillary Clinton would be released soon.

And, shortly thereafter, the stolen emails started being released by WikiLeaks (Roger had also bragged about having contact with Julian Assange, though he now claims that wasn't true).

I imagine Roger is sweating hard over this news. I know he's been begging for donations to his defense fund since other associates of his started being grilled a couple of months back.