Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4670
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 07 Jun 2017, 6:57 am

Yet more smoke ... still no fire. Stay tuned; this will go on for awhile.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Jun 2017, 12:33 pm

ray
Yet more smoke ... still no fire. Stay tuned; this will go on for awhile.


No evidence presented of collusion yet...
But certainly evidence of attempted obstruction of justice..

James Comey testimony: Trump asked me to let Flynn investigation go


http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/ ... index.html


fate
Your brilliant (not) retort is: "Do you have any evidence it was NOT done properly?"

It IS a brilliant retort.
You claim there is no evidence for collusion. And I think we can all agree that there is perhaps a pattern of behaviors but no definitive evidence yet. Perhaps never.
But you are willing to conclude that the unmasking of certain Trump associates was done improperly...even though the NSA had to approve the unmasking. Which requires one to believe that NSA agents would have to be corrupt...
And yet there is no evidence that such corruption exists..
So, again, if the NSA approved the unmasking ... what makes unmasking them wrong? Of wait, as you said
We have no evidence whatsoever.


(Leaking the names was certainly wrong. But we have no idea who leaked them do we?)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20737
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Jun 2017, 12:47 pm

rickyp wrote:
fate
Your brilliant (not) retort is: "Do you have any evidence it was NOT done properly?"

It IS a brilliant retort.


In the history of Redscape, you might have one. This wasn't that.

You claim there is no evidence for collusion. And I think we can all agree that there is perhaps a pattern of behaviors but no definitive evidence yet. Perhaps never.
But you are willing to conclude that the unmasking of certain Trump associates was done improperly...even though the NSA had to approve the unmasking.


Actually, you are, unsurprisingly, 100% wrong. So, again, are you dumb or dishonest? I'll let the reader decide.

However, I have only said WE DON'T KNOW if the unmasking was proper. The burden is not on me, even though you want it to be.

YOU have decided the default position is it was done properly. However, you have no reason for that. None. So, you then say, "Well, what is your proof it was improper?"

I don't need to prove that. It needs to be proven that it was properly done. The burden is on the government. It is the one with the responsibility to not violate the rights of its citizens. It's not the citizen's burden to prove they were violated. The government has rules and regulations concerning unmasking. You presume they were followed. What is your basis for that? You've made up possible reasons for the unmasking, but you do not KNOW.

It is too soon to KNOW.

Which requires one to believe that NSA agents would have to be corrupt...


Nope. It does not.

And yet there is no evidence that such corruption exists..
So, again, if the NSA approved the unmasking ... what makes unmasking them wrong? Of wait, as you said


You are a master of jackassery. Your principle is that if the NSA does something it is necessarily right. You do not KNOW that. You merely hypothesize and then demand I prove you wrong.

You are an ass.

Prove me wrong.

That's fair.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20737
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Jun 2017, 12:51 pm

Is the NSA always right? Does it always properly safeguard the rights of American citizens?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opini ... e-nsa.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/16/politics/ ... index.html

The National Security Agency spent Friday on the defensive, after details got out about an internal audit that found the agency had broken privacy rules "thousands of times each year" since 2008.
The audit was first reported by the Washington Post on Thursday, setting off another round of heated discussion -- and criticism -- in Washington over how the NSA had wrongly impinged on Americans' privacy.
"I ... will continue to demand honest and forthright answers from the intelligence community," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, noting the Senate Judiciary Committee he chairs will hold a hearing on the Post's revelations. "I remain concerned that we are still not getting straightforward answers from the NSA."
In a call with reporters Friday, John DeLong -- the NSA's director of compliance -- acknowledged "mistakes occur," even as he insisted only a "tiny" amount of such problems were intentional.
"No one at NSA thinks a mistake is OK," DeLong said several times in the call, which a spokesman said was conducted to "address inaccuracies."
NSA leaker Edward Snowden -- whose ongoing leaks have riled the Obama administration and intelligence community -- provided the material to the Post earlier this summer.
John Walker ran a father and son spy ring, passing classified material to the Soviet Union from 1967 to 1985. Walker was a Navy communication specialist with financial difficulties when he walked into the Soviet Embassy and sold a piece of cyphering equipment. Navy and Defense officials said that Walker enabled the Soviet Union to unscramble military communications and pinpoint the location of U.S. submarines at all times. As part of his plea deal, prosecutors promised leniency for Walker's son Michael Walker, a former Navy seaman. Click through the gallery to see other high-profile leak scandals the United States has seen over the years.

The May 2012 audit found 2,776 incidents of "unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications" in the preceding 12 months, the Post reported in its story.
"Most were unintended. Many involved failures of due diligence or violations of standard operating procedure," said the Post article by reporter Barton Gellman. "The most serious incidents included a violation of a court order and unauthorized use of data about more than 3,000 Americans and green-card holders."
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Jul 2017, 6:51 pm

Fire! Fire! Fire!

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/u ... oogle.com/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20737
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Jul 2017, 4:36 am



Desperate! Desperate! Desperate!

3 people with "knowledge of the email?"

O brother.

What is the direct connection to Russia?

What is the crime?

How (specifically) did this affect the election?

It is unclear whether Mr. Goldstone had direct knowledge of the origin of the damaging material. One person who was briefed on the emails said it appeared that he was passing along information that had been passed through several others.


You're on the bridge to nowhere . . . please watch your step.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4670
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 11 Jul 2017, 5:24 am



Not yet, but more smoke.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 11 Jul 2017, 6:00 am

The crime? You really think you could meet with a foreign government with the intent of receiving helpful dirt on your opponent? You really think that would be ok under the law? Here is the legal analysis.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/159 ... es-illegal

There are two routes for the Russian connection:

The first route goes through contacts Trump made through doing Miss Universe in Moscow in 2013. Ron Goldstone was the guy who suggested the meeting to Donald, Jr. It was Emin Agaralov, the Russian pop star with the 2 billion dollar developer father who sponsored the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow who suggested the meeting to Goldstone. Goldstone manages Emin Agaralov. Which means it was the developer father who is close to Putin who suggested it. Which in essence means the suggestion for the meeting came from Putin.

The second route goes through the lawyer. Natalia Veselnitskaya has been a vocal opponent of the Magnitsky Act and has represented Russian state owned companies. She has attacked that law that Russia hates so much they stopped American adoptions for Russian children. There was no indication that Ms Veselnotskaya had a prior connection to Goldstone.

And both Trump, Jr. and Goldman lied about the meeting being about adoptions. And Trump, Jr. admits that he and Kushner and Manafort--basically all of the important people in the Trump campaign--met with this Russian-connected lawyer to get dirt on Hillary. He "claims" he got nothing but we don't know that. That Trump would agree for Donald, Jr. to meet someone who is so closely connected to the Russian government to get dirt on Hillary is pretty darn concerning.

At best now Trump could say that the campaign only attempted to collude with the Russians. So that's fire. I don't care how you want to spin it. The fact that Donald, Jr got an email telling him that the Russian government wanted to help the campaign and still went to the meeting speaks volumes. The idea that Trump did not know about the meeting is laughable.

Here is a timeline:

2013 Trump and Agaralov put on Miss Universe beauty contest. Emin Agaralov, Agaralov's son,performs. Agaralov is close to Putin.

Late May, 2016--Trump clinches nomination.

June 9, 2016--Donald, Jr meets with Russian lawyer at request of Ronald Goldstone who represents Emin Agaraov, the person who asked him to set up meeting.

July 22, 2016--Wikileaks dumps DNC emails.

October 7, 2016--Access Hollywood tape comes out.

October 7, 2016 (1 hour later!)--Wikileaks releases Podesta emails.

Hmm...you just won the nomination. We're going to help you. Maybe you can do something about those sanctions....

More data points:

March 29 Paul Manafort hired as convention manager.

May 16, 2016--Manafort promoted to campaign chairman and chief strategist.

June 20 2016--Manafort promoted to campaign manager. Wins power struggle with Lewandowski who had been campaign manager since the beginning. This happened 11 days after Donald, Jr met with Russian lawyer.

August--Manafort gets plank calling for arming Ukraine taken out of Republican Convention platform.

So somewhere around the time Russia is hacking into the DNC and Podesta emails...Manafort gets hired by Trump. Shortly after this meeting with the Russian lawyer he muscles his way into control of the campaign...over a guy--Lewandowski--who got Trump there. Where the heck did he get that kind of pull from? He then gets plank regarding Ukraine that Russia wanted out of the Republican Party platform--out.

I would be very, very interested to know how Manafort got hired. If you were cynical you might suspect that he got put there due to Russian influence. He just shows up and three months later he is campaign manager?

The fake news press (according to Trump)...is about to get Trump.
Last edited by freeman3 on 11 Jul 2017, 8:30 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 11 Jul 2017, 6:11 am

The funny thing is that up to now there was no direct evidence of collusion...but the behavior of Trump--both with regard to the attempt during the transition to mollify Russia regarding sanctions and his extreme attempts to shut down the Russia investigation-- pointed to either collusion or that he was receiving a financial benefit. You knew from Trump's behavior there was something there...but the evidence had to be found to prove it. Now we got the first big piece of evidence on that side of it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20737
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Jul 2017, 11:36 am

Unlike Clinton and her stonewalling, Trump Jr. has released the emails.

Let me know when he gets arrested.

Thanks.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 11 Jul 2017, 2:08 pm

The police do appreciate it when suspects turn in all of the incriminating evidence to them. Very sporting.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4670
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 11 Jul 2017, 3:29 pm

freeman3 wrote:The police do appreciate it when suspects turn in all of the incriminating evidence to them. Very sporting.


especially when the NYT is going to publish it anyway.

It incriminates Donald Jr., and Kushner has some splaining to do, but no fire, yet, as it relates to POTUS. I wonder if they will let Kushner off the hook if he testifies against dad-in-law. How will Ivanka react to that? It's a shame Shakespeare is not around to write about this.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 11 Jul 2017, 5:24 pm

How did the New York Times get those emails? I guess it's safe to assume that since they got one...they could get the other ones too. But who gave the emails to them?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 11 Jul 2017, 6:20 pm

Reading the New York Times Article it said "one person who was briefed on the emails." Hmm, Mueller investigation? Seems to be prosecutorial-type lingo.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20737
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Jul 2017, 3:10 am

freeman3 wrote:Reading the New York Times Article it said "one person who was briefed on the emails." Hmm, Mueller investigation? Seems to be prosecutorial-type lingo.


The issue, for me, is the crossing of politics into legal issues. I don't care if legitimate prosecutions are carried out. I am concerned that this will turn into a sort of jihad for Hillary supporters--nothing more and nothing less.