Mueller investigation

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have been hesitant to call President Twitler McCrazyPants a traitor, but now is the time for me to do so. If we were living in France WWII, he'd be one if the turncoat French working for the Nazis and so would a lot of his administration and Republicans. Other Republicans might be just passively not doing anything about it and some few might resist. Fox News is like the German propaganda in France over the radio and you can see how they are covering these stories. Traitors. I said it. Active and passive traitors. Propagandist traitors. Lying traitors. Selling us out for a quick buck.

It reads like a novel. First we heard rumors, then the source of the rumors became known, then the names of the people who were making the communications became known, now we are learning the connections between all of the people who were making the communications, and what was thought to be a possibility is clearly becoming fact. The puzzle pieces are on the table and the picture is quite clear. Trump's campaign colluded and conspired with the Russians during the 2016 campaign... among other things.

There are two things that also occur to me. One, Mueller probably wouldn't be involved in this if it were not true. The worse thought, this very likely is still part of Putin's plan in the first place, the downfall of Trump (granted, Putin might have thought it impossible for Trump to have won in the first place, but much like the towers collapsing after the 9/11 attack not necessarily being part of the original plan, Putin took it glad-fully).

 

[Gun Nut]

Okay, so this might not be THE smoking gun, but it would be hard for most people, other than a select few here to argue that:

Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I'm back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.

isn't damning evidence there was a conspiracy.

Am I one of those few capable of thinking freely enough to form an argument here that you are referring to? I think maybe.

In the Statement of Offense offered by the investigative team, it is clearly written that the charge is of lying to investigators about prior knowledge of the release of stolen emails. There is no charge of conspiracy with those that stole the emails, or any other form of collusion with any other entity, other than offering information to the Trump campaign about the intended use of the stolen emails... which there is no indication that he knew were gotten illegally.... just that they were "there" and going to be released publicly in such a way as to create the most harm to the Democratic party.

The statement of offense is not a long document nor difficult to read. I can't imagine why it is hard for anyone to observe and report that those few pages do not contain a charge of conspiracy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Curiouser and curiouser:

This is the law firm that represented trump's business for ~12 years.
https://twitter.com/fspielman/statu...alkrational.org/index.php/topic,763.4350.html

Indictments on fixers, and alderman staff men,
Bright prison coveralls, license plate craftsmen
Brown paper legal firms tied up with strings,
These are a few of my favorite things
Buff colored faxes of plans to canoodle,
Collusion sought out by Marines who are brutal
Golfers caught out with their pants ‘round their knees
These are a few of my favorite scenes.
When the press bites
When backstabber sings
When I'm reading tweets
I simply remember my favorite things
And then I just can’t stop smiling. It actually worries my libertarian coworkers to quite some degree right now.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Okay, so those coworkers are insisting that no one has connected TRUMP to any crime, yet.

Which is really odd, as they're almost all military vets.

There, if something happens, it's the CO's fault. He's responsible for everything that happens on his command. If he was asleep in his Bunkie when the destroyer crossed in front of an aircraft carrier that cut it in half, they take HIM to court martial, and he testifies that he was at the helm. Because he chose the people who stood the watch, signed their qual card, and said, "You have the skills to responsibly stand in my stead as if you were me."

Trump brags on how well he picks the people that surround him, that it's his choice, his appointments, not that he's been burdened with people the voters foisted upon him (Except when he's complaining that other branches of the government aren't behaving like he's their CEO). So even if he's completely divorced from all the actual illegal actions identified, how does he not bear culpability for the actions of the people he paid to get things done?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, so this might not be THE smoking gun, but it would be hard for most people, other than a select few here to argue that:

Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I'm back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.

isn't damning evidence there was a conspiracy.

Am I one of those few capable of thinking freely enough to form an argument here that you are referring to? I think maybe.

Go for it.

In the Statement of Offense offered by the investigative team, it is clearly written that the charge is of lying to investigators about prior knowledge of the release of stolen emails. There is no charge of conspiracy with those that stole the emails, or any other form of collusion with any other entity, other than offering information to the Trump campaign about the intended use of the stolen emails... which there is no indication that he knew were gotten illegally.... just that they were "there" and going to be released publicly in such a way as to create the most harm to the Democratic party.

Yeah, that is true... but the thing is, it is hard to imagine this level of coordination exists, but there was no conspiracy to collude with Russia. If you look at the big picture:

1) Emails were stolen by Russian operatives
2) Several Trump Campaign Senior Staff met with Russia with the goal of gaining help against Clinton (including the President's son)
3) There was direct communication between multiple Trump staff / allies with Wikileaks

The argument that it was all coincidence that the Russians hacked Democrat communications and Trump's staff communicated directly with Russian operatives and Wikileaks and all of the information was leaked (including right after pussygate) in an attempt to harm Clinton's campaign is rather little in the way of compelling. And this is ignoring Trump's unbelievable behavior relative to Putin, including attempting to give Russia back their spy HQ's in the US, bad mouthing the CIA while standing next to Putin, and meeting secretly with Putin for two bloody hours.

Trump brownshirt'ers like to take every individual charge individually, in order to dilute the significance. You put it all together, and it seems almost impossible that Trump didn't betray the nation.

 

[Gun Nut]

Yeah, that is true... but the thing is, it is hard to imagine this level of coordination exists, but there was no conspiracy to collude with Russia.

I accept your correction from "argue" to "imagine".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, that is true... but the thing is, it is hard to imagine this level of coordination exists, but there was no conspiracy to collude with Russia.

I accept your correction from "argue" to "imagine".

That nitpick doesn't help your cause. It is typically easier to imagine than to argue. Therefore, if you can't even imagine a scenario where factually established Trump coordination regarding stolen emails existing as purely coincidental to attempts of the Campaign to coordinate with Russia, that means it'd be incredibly tough to argue it.

 

[Elixir]

Okay, so this might not be THE smoking gun, but it would be hard for most people, other than a select few here to argue that:

Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I'm back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.

isn't damning evidence there was a conspiracy.

Am I one of those few capable of thinking freely enough to form an argument here that you are referring to? I think maybe.

In the Statement of Offense offered by the investigative team, it is clearly written that the charge is of lying to investigators about prior knowledge of the release of stolen emails. There is no charge of conspiracy with those that stole the emails, or any other form of collusion with any other entity, other than offering information to the Trump campaign about the intended use of the stolen emails... which there is no indication that he knew were gotten illegally.... just that they were "there" and going to be released publicly in such a way as to create the most harm to the Democratic party.

The statement of offense is not a long document nor difficult to read. I can't imagine why it is hard for anyone to observe and report that those few pages do not contain a charge of conspiracy.

I'm glad you aren't anyone's lawyer, dude.
A conspiracy to distribute material known to be stolen is a crime, and doing so in an effort to fraudulently effect a US election is definitely a crime. Aiding and abetting either activity is also a crime. Your insistence that a conspiracy charge necessarily should have accompanied the charge of lying to the FBI is nothing but petulant adolescent whining.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Curiouser and curiouser:

This is the law firm that represented trump's business for ~12 years.
https://twitter.com/fspielman/statu...alkrational.org/index.php/topic,763.4350.html

Indeed! Here's a bit more local insight:

The powerful Chicago alderman’s small law firm had worked for Trump for 12 years, persuading Cook County officials to cut the property taxes on the president’s namesake downtown skyscraper by a total of more than $14 million.
...
Burke’s firm also handles appeals on property taxes on the AT&T building, 225 W. Randolph, now owned by Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner. The telecommunications giant sold the property to Kushner and leases it back from him under an agreement that calls for AT&T to pay the real estate taxes. AT&T uses Burke’s firm to seek property tax cuts on the building.

So it may be more of a ploy to go after Kushner.

 

[Gun Nut]

Yeah, that is true... but the thing is, it is hard to imagine this level of coordination exists, but there was no conspiracy to collude with Russia.

I accept your correction from "argue" to "imagine".

That nitpick doesn't help your cause. It is typically easier to imagine than to argue. Therefore, if you can't even imagine a scenario where factually established Trump coordination regarding stolen emails existing as purely coincidental to attempts of the Campaign to coordinate with Russia, that means it'd be incredibly tough to argue it.

wasn't that Giuliani's argument in reverse? He said that if you can conceive of a mass conspiracy to overthrow the president by falsely claiming collusion with Russia, then it's a witch hunt... or something like that.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Not to pile on a dead horse, but...

In the Statement of Offense offered by the investigative team, it is clearly written that the charge is of lying to investigators about prior knowledge of the release of stolen emails. There is no charge of conspiracy with those that stole the emails, or any other form of collusion with any other entity, other than offering information to the Trump campaign about the intended use of the stolen emails... which there is no indication that he knew were gotten illegally.... just that they were "there" and going to be released publicly in such a way as to create the most harm to the Democratic party.

The statement of offense is not a long document nor difficult to read. I can't imagine why it is hard for anyone to observe and report that those few pages do not contain a charge of conspiracy.

First, here's the opening statement of the Statement of Offense for Corsi:

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the United States of America and the defendant, JEROME CORSI, stipulate and agree that the following facts are true and accurate. These facts do not constitute all of the facts known to the parties concerning the charged offense; they are being submitted to demonstrate that sufficient facts exist that the defendant committed the offense to which he is pleading guilty.

Got that? The document states right up front that the facts being presented are not "all of the facts known" and that they are being submitted only to demonstrate that he committed the offense "to which he is pleading guilty." Iow, he and Mueller evidently worked out a plea deal where he pleads to a lesser offense in exchange for providing Mueller with information on Stone and/or Trump (but likely just Stone).

Do you not understand how a plea deal works?

 

[Gun Nut]

Am I one of those few capable of thinking freely enough to form an argument here that you are referring to? I think maybe.

In the Statement of Offense offered by the investigative team, it is clearly written that the charge is of lying to investigators about prior knowledge of the release of stolen emails. There is no charge of conspiracy with those that stole the emails, or any other form of collusion with any other entity, other than offering information to the Trump campaign about the intended use of the stolen emails... which there is no indication that he knew were gotten illegally.... just that they were "there" and going to be released publicly in such a way as to create the most harm to the Democratic party.

The statement of offense is not a long document nor difficult to read. I can't imagine why it is hard for anyone to observe and report that those few pages do not contain a charge of conspiracy.

I'm glad you aren't anyone's lawyer, dude.
A conspiracy to distribute material known to be stolen is a crime, and doing so in an effort to fraudulently effect a US election is definitely a crime. Aiding and abetting either activity is also a crime. Your insistence that a conspiracy charge necessarily should have accompanied the charge of lying to the FBI is nothing but petulant adolescent whining.

No charge was related to any knowledge of any stolen goods of any kind. The only charge was lying to investigators. I'm glad your not anyone's lawyer either, if you're not even going to read the documents... not even the 4 page easy one where this is all very clear. You're starting to disappoint me Elixir.. I thought you seemed quite fair and reasonable in the past. Maybe it's just your reaction to me... like, personally. They call that Trump Derangement Syndrome... that's where if someone does not agree with even the most extreme of opinions that relate to Trump in any negative way, then that person is the Devil and no agreement with any aspect of anything they say is acceptable... Not that we need to agree on our opinions... but facts? come on, man.

 

[Elixir]

Am I one of those few capable of thinking freely enough to form an argument here that you are referring to? I think maybe.

In the Statement of Offense offered by the investigative team, it is clearly written that the charge is of lying to investigators about prior knowledge of the release of stolen emails. There is no charge of conspiracy with those that stole the emails, or any other form of collusion with any other entity, other than offering information to the Trump campaign about the intended use of the stolen emails... which there is no indication that he knew were gotten illegally.... just that they were "there" and going to be released publicly in such a way as to create the most harm to the Democratic party.

The statement of offense is not a long document nor difficult to read. I can't imagine why it is hard for anyone to observe and report that those few pages do not contain a charge of conspiracy.

I'm glad you aren't anyone's lawyer, dude.
A conspiracy to distribute material known to be stolen is a crime, and doing so in an effort to fraudulently effect a US election is definitely a crime. Aiding and abetting either activity is also a crime. Your insistence that a conspiracy charge necessarily should have accompanied the charge of lying to the FBI is nothing but petulant adolescent whining.

No charge was related to any knowledge of any stolen goods of any kind.

See Koy's post. You really need to bone up on a few facts before ranting about what was not included in that single document.
I read that document - apparently so did you but you failed to understand what it is. If your sorry excuse for an argument held any water whatsoever this investigation would be over - long since.
But you seem to have been poisoned by the "witch hunt" propaganda. Too bad.

"These facts do not constitute all of the facts known to the parties concerning the charged offense..."

What do you suppose comprises "all the facts" known to Mueller?

 

[blastula]

Not to pile on a dead horse, but...

In the Statement of Offense offered by the investigative team, it is clearly written that the charge is of lying to investigators about prior knowledge of the release of stolen emails. There is no charge of conspiracy with those that stole the emails, or any other form of collusion with any other entity, other than offering information to the Trump campaign about the intended use of the stolen emails... which there is no indication that he knew were gotten illegally.... just that they were "there" and going to be released publicly in such a way as to create the most harm to the Democratic party.

The statement of offense is not a long document nor difficult to read. I can't imagine why it is hard for anyone to observe and report that those few pages do not contain a charge of conspiracy.

First, here's the opening statement of the Statement of Offense for Corsi:

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the United States of America and the defendant, JEROME CORSI, stipulate and agree that the following facts are true and accurate. These facts do not constitute all of the facts known to the parties concerning the charged offense; they are being submitted to demonstrate that sufficient facts exist that the defendant committed the offense to which he is pleading guilty.

Got that? The document states right up front that the facts being presented are not "all of the facts known" and that they are being submitted only to demonstrate that he committed the offense "to which he is pleading guilty." Iow, he and Mueller evidently worked out a plea deal where he pleads to a lesser offense in exchange for providing Mueller with information on Stone and/or Trump (but likely just Stone).

Do you not understand how a plea deal works?

And it's not even the filed Statement.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That nitpick doesn't help your cause. It is typically easier to imagine than to argue. Therefore, if you can't even imagine a scenario where factually established Trump coordination regarding stolen emails existing as purely coincidental to attempts of the Campaign to coordinate with Russia, that means it'd be incredibly tough to argue it.

wasn't that Giuliani's argument in reverse? He said that if you can conceive of a mass conspiracy to overthrow the president by falsely claiming collusion with Russia, then it's a witch hunt... or something like that.

The relevance of that aside seems nonexistent.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That nitpick doesn't help your cause. It is typically easier to imagine than to argue. Therefore, if you can't even imagine a scenario where factually established Trump coordination regarding stolen emails existing as purely coincidental to attempts of the Campaign to coordinate with Russia, that means it'd be incredibly tough to argue it.

wasn't that Giuliani's argument in reverse? He said that if you can conceive of a mass conspiracy to overthrow the president by falsely claiming collusion with Russia, then it's a witch hunt... or something like that.

The relevance of that aside seems nonexistent.

Yeah, i can CONEIVE of a god. Still an atheist.

But I would like a nickel for every time I've seen a Believer state 'I can't even imagine a godless universe' or words to that effect.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So it may be more of a ploy to go after Kushner.

I don't think 'ploy' is the right word. There's got to have been enough evidence already collected for them to convince a judge that there would be lots more evidence there to justify a warrant. So, more like 'we've reached that step in the proceedings.'

 

[Opoponax]

In the Statement of Offense offered by the investigative team, it is clearly written that the charge is of lying to investigators about prior knowledge of the release of stolen emails. There is no charge of conspiracy with those that stole the emails, or any other form of collusion with any other entity, other than offering information to the Trump campaign about the intended use of the stolen emails... which there is no indication that he knew were gotten illegally.... just that they were "there" and going to be released publicly in such a way as to create the most harm to the Democratic party.

The statement of offense is not a long document nor difficult to read. I can't imagine why it is hard for anyone to observe and report that those few pages do not contain a charge of conspiracy.

A Statement of Offense will not have every charge that can ever be leveled, or was threatened to be leveled against the defendant. In this case, it appears that obstruction of justice, and any other charges relating to obstruction have been dropped should the plea agreement be specifically performed. As to any other possible charges in conjunction with obstruction, a charge of conspiracy to obstruct could be leveled should Corsi back out. This is included in the plea agreement. Note under 4. Additional Charges:

In consideration of your client’s guilty plea to the above offense, your client will not be further prosecuted criminally by this Office for the conduct set forth in the attached Statement of the Offense; for any other false statements made by him to this Office or to the grand jury between September 6, 2018 and November 2, 2018; and for obstructing, aiding or abetting in the obstruction of, or conspiring to obstruct or commit perjury before congressional or grand jury investigations in connection with the conduct described in the Statement of Offense.

Conspiracy is in the mix here somewhere. What that conspiracy entails is far from clear though.

Conspiracy is an agreement between two or people to commit an illegal act with both* parties having the intent to carry out that act. The actual conspiracy is found within the agreement. Many jurisdictions require a substantial act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Here, it appears every element is satisfied regardless of the in furtherance requirement. And it appears from the plea agreement that conspiracy reared its head somewhere in this mess. Even though not charged in the Statement of Offense, it seems likely that it could be charged should Corsi not perform the plea agreement (again, see the plea agreement).

*There is such a thing as unilateral conspiracy, but that's not relevant here.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Of more interest than what gun nut thinks is or is not important, there's this from the Offense Statement:

CORSI thereafter knowingly and intentionally made the following materially false statements during the interview:

CORSI said he declined the request from Person 1 and made clear to Person 1 that trying to contact Organization 1 could be subject to investigation.​

Since we now know that "Person 1" was Stone and "Organization 1" was WikiLeaks, why would Corsi lie to the FBI that he had "made clear to [Stone] that trying to contact [WikiLeaks] could be subject to investigation"?

Unless Corsi knew Assange had received information from Russia, what would be "subject to investigation" about Stone "trying to contact WikiLeaks" and why lie to the FBI about it, if not to assure them that Corsi wasn't a part of any such thing and even tried to stop Stone from being a part of any such thing?

In that context, this often overlooked phrase (emphasis mine) in the now infamous section is all the more relevant:

On or about August 2, 2016, CORSI responded to Person 1 by email. CORSI wrote that he was currently in Europe and planned to return in mid-August. CORSI stated: “Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.… Time to let more than [the Clinton Campaign chairman] to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton]. That appears to be the game hackers are now about. Would not hurt to start suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke -- neither he nor she well. I expect that much of next dump focus, setting stage for Foundation debacle.”

"Hackers are" plural; i.e., not just Guccifer, or "Hacker is." At that point, Corsi supposedly knew that it was Guccifer that was doing the hacking, so why would he have said "That appears to be the game hackers are now about" instead of "That appears to be the game the hacker is now about" unless he knew--presumably from Guccifer--that there were additional hackers working with Guccifer?

Which, again, would have indicated Russians, not merely highly politicized, yet unaffiliated, right-wing high school geeks with nothing better to do and that don't actually exist.

Note as well that the very next section states:

Between approximately January 13, 2017 and March 1, 2017, CORSI deleted from his computer all email correspondence that predated October 11, 2016, including Person 1’s email instructing CORSI to “get to [the founder of Organization 1]” and CORSI’s subsequent forwarding of that email to the overseas individual.

And, presumably, any email correspondence he may have had with Guccifer.

 

[Gun Nut]

No charge was related to any knowledge of any stolen goods of any kind.

See Koy's post. You really need to bone up on a few facts before ranting about what was not included in that single document.
I read that document - apparently so did you but you failed to understand what it is. If your sorry excuse for an argument held any water whatsoever this investigation would be over - long since.
But you seem to have been poisoned by the "witch hunt" propaganda. Too bad.

"These facts do not constitute all of the facts known to the parties concerning the charged offense..."

What do you suppose comprises "all the facts" known to Mueller?

Rape, obviously.. right, right? Getting a blowjob in the oval office? who knows?... you don't.