13 Nov 18
1 edit
@metal-brain saidWhether it affected the elections is unknowable; info from it was certainly used in the campaign to discredit the DNC. And while you keep wanting to ignore this, hacking into someone's computers is a crime and knowingly trying to benefit from that crime is also a crime as is lying about your knowledge of it to federal investigators.
Indictments are not convictions. Russia is being punished for helping Assad stay in power. It has nothing to do with elections. Besides, nothing revealed from the DNC hack/leak affected the elections. What was revealed was simply factual information about Debbie Wasserman Shultz conspiring to affect the elections.
The dossier made false claims about Carter Page that you ...[text shortened]... ble.
https://www.techworm.net/2016/04/infamous-cyber-attacks-hackers-never-caught-identified.html
What info about Carter Page in the dossier has been shown to be false? There's no question he went to Moscow and met with Russian officials there about a month after the Trump Tower meeting.
14 Nov 18
1 edit
@no1marauder saidIt is a crime, but you have too prove it. Indictments are not proof as you well know. The news media largely ignores Debbie W. Shultz considering her intent to conspire against Sanders to swing the primary elections in HRC's favor. It should have been a huge scandal. Same thing with Donna Brazile e-mailing the debate questions to John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri . She even said she didn't regret it. Very unethical! Thank you wikileaks.
Whether it affected the elections is unknowable; info from it was certainly used in the campaign to discredit the DNC. And while you keep wanting to ignore this, hacking into someone's computers is a crime and knowingly trying to benefit from that crime is also a crime as is lying about your knowledge of it to federal investigators.
What info about Carter Page in the d ...[text shortened]... he went to Moscow and met with Russian officials there about a month after the Trump Tower meeting.
From the link below:
"Some press accounts have treated the dossier’s allegation that Russian officials offered Trump adviser Carter Page billions to end US sanctions as confirmed in September 2016 reporting by Yahoo News’ Michael Isikoff. But Isikoff’s “Western intelligence source” was almost surely the dossier itself. So the media used the dossier to corroborate the dossier. (Page, who has repeatedly denied under oath he met with the Russian officials cited in the dossier, is suing Yahoo News over the Isikoff story.)
What doesn’t check out at all, though, is the dossier’s most serious charge: that Trump officials secretly met with Kremlin officials overseas to hatch the hacking scheme against the Clinton campaign."
https://nypost.com/2017/11/19/here-are-some-of-the-biggest-myths-of-the-russian-collusion-story/
Using the dossier to dossier to corroborate the dossier. Whoever did that is pathetic!
@metal-brain saidYou keep using the same year old article to try to prove something. It's claims are completely unverified as well as being out of date; for example, Page's lawsuit was dismissed almost 8 months ago. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/21/carter-page-yahoo-lawsuit-477568
It is a crime, but you have too prove it. Indictments are not proof as you well know. The news media largely ignores Debbie W. Shultz considering her intent to conspire against Sanders to swing the primary elections in HRC's favor. It should have been a huge scandal. Same thing with Donna Brazile e-mailing the debate questions to John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri . She e ...[text shortened]... ion-story/
Using the dossier to dossier to corroborate the dossier. Whoever did that is pathetic!
Everybody and their mother knew the DNC favored HRC over Sanders; there is no illegality involved in that.
Indictments are a substantial step in the criminal process. You can't get to a trial without an indictment.
14 Nov 18
@no1marauder said"What doesn’t check out at all, though, is the dossier’s most serious charge: that Trump officials secretly met with Kremlin officials overseas to hatch the hacking scheme against the Clinton campaign."
You keep using the same year old article to try to prove something. It's claims are completely unverified as well as being out of date; for example, Page's lawsuit was dismissed almost 8 months ago. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/21/carter-page-yahoo-lawsuit-477568
Everybody and their mother knew the DNC favored HRC over Sanders; there is no illegality involved ...[text shortened]... ents are a substantial step in the criminal process. You can't get to a trial without an indictment.
The most serious charge is false. The dossier contains lies. It has been largely discredited. Pointing to something else in an attempt to digress will not change that fact.
The Page lawsuit was against Yahoo news was dismissed because it said this:
"The Article does not say that Plaintiff actually met with....two Russians, but rather that U.S. officials had received reports of such meetings,"
It wasn't that he couldn't prove he never met with the 2 Russians, it was because yahoo news said "US officials heard a report".
Technically it was not false, apparently hearsay is news now. A clever way to imply without lying.
14 Nov 18
@no1marauder saidNobody by the name Trump.
New indictments are expected this week with Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi and others the likely subjects: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-13/new-mueller-indictments-expected-as-soon-as-tuesday-cbs-reports
14 Nov 18
@metal-brain saidYou can keep stamping your feet and making false claims all you want, but that doesn't make them true. There is ample evidence of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents and officials; Papadopoulos was convicted of lying about one.
"What doesn’t check out at all, though, is the dossier’s most serious charge: that Trump officials secretly met with Kremlin officials overseas to hatch the hacking scheme against the Clinton campaign."
The most serious charge is false. The dossier contains lies. It has been largely discredited. Pointing to something else in an attempt to digress will not change that ...[text shortened]...
Technically it was not false, apparently hearsay is news now. A clever way to imply without lying.
14 Nov 18
@metal-brain saidWe shall see. Rumors are swirling that Donald Jr. could be in the near future.
Nobody by the name Trump.
No one is expecting the Donald to be indicted; there is a DOJ advisory opinion that sitting Presidents can't be indicted. Mueller could name him as an unindicted co-conspirator (as Nixon was) or simply file a report and leave what to do up to Congress.
14 Nov 18
@no1marauder saidIsn't Trump already a non-indicted co-conspirator in the Cohen case?
We shall see. Rumors are swirling that Donald Jr. could be in the near future.
No one is expecting the Donald to be indicted; there is a DOJ advisory opinion that sitting Presidents can't be indicted. Mueller could name him as an unindicted co-conspirator (as Nixon was) or simply file a report and leave what to do up to Congress.
14 Nov 18
@no1marauder saidYou are the one making the false claims.
You can keep stamping your feet and making false claims all you want, but that doesn't make them true. There is ample evidence of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents and officials; Papadopoulos was convicted of lying about one.
14 Nov 18
@kazetnagorra saidNot exactly. The Criminal Information in that case refers to an "Individual-1" who began his Presidential campaign on June 16, 2015 which is clearly the Donald. It says that Cohen coordinated with one or more members of the campaign about the illegal payments but does not specifically name anyone. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4779489/Cohen-Information.pdf
Isn't Trump already a non-indicted co-conspirator in the Cohen case?
At his plea hearing, however " Cohen said the payments were meant to influence the 2016 election, and were made "in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office."
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/aug/22/does-michael-cohens-guilty-plea-place-trump-legal-/
16 Nov 18
@no1marauder saidBut of course every trumpite now says Cohen is lying. We expected nothing else.
Not exactly. The Criminal Information in that case refers to an "Individual-1" who began his Presidential campaign on June 16, 2015 which is clearly the Donald. It says that Cohen coordinated with one or more members of the campaign about the illegal payments but does not specifically name anyone. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4779489/Cohen-Information.pdf
...[text shortened]... politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/aug/22/does-michael-cohens-guilty-plea-place-trump-legal-/