What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (5 Viewers)

From twitter:

“yes stone is a whack job but it's just ludicrous to think this case deserves the prosecutorial time or resources that are being thrown at it, or that this case would ever be prosecuted if team mueller didn't need some skins on the wall to tar team trump by association”

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Ron Paul and Rand Paul always defend Putin’s position on everything:

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1191559430518820864
Click to expand...
Yeah. I find this SO strange.  
 

Occam’s razor suggests when this eventually all comes to light, it’s gonna make a lot of sense.  And it’s gonna be the worst fears many of us hold.

All the evidence and circumstance points to some huge influence Russia holds over the GOP and many of its key players and allies (ie the NRA).  
 

Im open to other, less incendiary conclusions. I pray somehow I’m just blinded by my own perspective (or lack thereof).  But it just seems that major factions of the GOP from the President on down are not just influenced by, but beholden to, Russian interests. 
 

The USSR May have lost the Cold War to wisely begin a new long game which we are seeing rear its head 30+ years I’m the making.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Ron Paul and Rand Paul always defend Putin’s position on everything:

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1191559430518820864
Click to expand...
I would also suggest that we’ve seen others including some in the general populace who appear to fully align with any and every position that is promoted by / supported by / benefits the Russians and Putin. 
 

To think it’s ideological or that they truly believe it’s on our nations best interests seems (to me) literally impossible. Trying to keep an open mind, but again, it’s Occams hammer hitting us on the head over and over - forget just a razor.  
 

That said, I’ve yet to see a reasonable explanation other than they (they meaning from the general populace to senators to the NRA to the President) at best sympathize and align with Russian interests if not are part of them/beholden to them.  Really would like to hear a fair reason and explanation to the contrary, but have not as of yet.

 
Koya said:
I would also suggest that we’ve seen others including some in the general populace who appear to fully align with any and every position that is promoted by / supported by / benefits the Russians and Putin. 
 

To think it’s ideological or that they truly believe it’s on our nations best interests seems (to me) literally impossible. Trying to keep an open mind, but again, it’s Occams hammer hitting us on the head over and over - forget just a razor.  
 

That said, I’ve yet to see a reasonable explanation other than they (they meaning from the general populace to senators to the NRA to the President) at best sympathize and align with Russian interests if not are part of them/beholden to them.  Really would like to hear a fair reason and explanation to the contrary, but have not as of yet.
Click to expand...
Not going to happen on this board.

 
The Commish said:
Not going to happen on this board.
Click to expand...
I’m not limiting this comment to the board. I’ve not seen anything to refute “they are in bed with the Russians” that has substance. Literally every action, policy, tweet, seems to suggest that is the case. 

 
ren hoek said:
From twitter:

“yes stone is a whack job but it's just ludicrous to think this case deserves the prosecutorial time or resources that are being thrown at it, or that this case would ever be prosecuted if team mueller didn't need some skins on the wall to tar team trump by association”
Click to expand...
Team Mueller has left the building. This is Barr’s DOJ.

 
Koya said:
I would also suggest that we’ve seen others including some in the general populace who appear to fully align with any and every position that is promoted by / supported by / benefits the Russians and Putin. 

To think it’s ideological or that they truly believe it’s on our nations best interests seems (to me) literally impossible. Trying to keep an open mind, but again, it’s Occams hammer hitting us on the head over and over - forget just a razor.
Click to expand...
For the regular people on the street who always seem to take pro-Russian views, I think it's genuinely ideological. Sincere pacifists can be tricked into adopting pacifist-adjacent (pro-Putin) views just like sincere evangelicals can be tricked into adopting evangelical-adjacent (pro-Trump) views. (I don't mean that Putin is close to a pacifist or that Trump is close to a Bible-believer. I mean that Putin's propaganda seems aimed at attracting pacifists just like Trump's campaign rhetoric seems aimed at attracting evangelicals even though Putin and Trump themselves aren't buying what they're selling.) For the Glenn Greenwalds and Matt Taibbis of the world, it might be ideological or it might be something else. Maybe a combination. For Donald Trump, Dana Rohrabacher, Paul Manafort, and Rudy Giuliani, it seems like there's more to it than sincere ideology. I don't know exactly where Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jill Stein, and Tulsi Gabbard fit in.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya said:
I’m not limiting this comment to the board. I’ve not seen anything to refute “they are in bed with the Russians” that has substance. Literally every action, policy, tweet, seems to suggest that is the case. 
Click to expand...
And you won't. They can only play the cards they've been dealt

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
For the regular people on the street who always seem to take pro-Russian views, I think it's genuinely ideological. Sincere pacifists can be tricked into adopting pacifist-adjacent (pro-Putin) views just like sincere evangelicals can be tricked into adopting evangelical-adjacent (pro-Trump) views. (I don't mean that Putin is close to a pacifist or that Trump is close to a Bible-believer. I mean that Putin's propaganda seems aimed at attracting pacifists just like Trump's campaign rhetoric seems aimed at attracting evangelicals even though Putin and Trump themselves aren't buying what they're selling.) For the Glenn Greenwalds and Matt Taibbis of the world, it might be ideological or it might be something else. Maybe a combination. For Donald Trump, Dana Rohrabacher, Paul Manafort, and Rudy Giuliani, it seems like there's more to it than sincere ideology. I don't know exactly where Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jill Stein, and Tulsi Gabbard fit in.
Click to expand...
I can see some portion of the general population somehow sympathizing - but when it’s literally every single issue, things get curious. 
 

As to the last list of public figures and elected officials you mention, if it’s ideological then their ideology imo supports and benefits our greatest historical adversary at the expense of US interests. Understanding that and giving no excuse for ignorance due to their standing, I’m hard pressed to think there is not some personal benefit to their position (and in some cases the benefit may be not receiving the negative impact of going against Russia/Putin due to Kompromat and the like.

 
Stone jury seated.  Opening arguments shortly.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson is back on the bench. The jury will now be sworn in and given preliminary instructions about how the trial will proceed. Then we'll go into opening statements from the government and Stone's defense team.

 
It's a brilliant strategy by Russia

Think about how little money it takes to buy influence.  They probably bought rand paul for 10 million or less which is pennies to them

 
On the first day of his trial, onetime Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone fell ill. Another person collapsed in the courtroom, and people tangentially related to the case squabbled in the hallway. On day two, an ex-FBI agent read aloud lewd, profanity-laced text messages Stone sent an associate. Later, the judge scolded Stone’s lawyer for being too boring.

Then Randy Credico took the stand, and the circus finally began.

...Prosecutors the early days of the trial presenting evidence they say proves that Stone attempted to coerce Credico to impede efforts by congressional and federal investigators. ...
Click to expand...
ABC

- As I understand it one thing that has come out of this is that Stone basically put forth to investigators that Credico was his mediator with Assange and Wikileaks, when in fact it was Stone just acting directly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
On the first day of his trial, onetime Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone fell ill. Another person collapsed in the courtroom, and people tangentially related to the case squabbled in the hallway. On day two, an ex-FBI agent read aloud lewd, profanity-laced text messages Stone sent an associate. Later, the judge scolded Stone’s lawyer for being too boring.

Then Randy Credico took the stand, and the circus finally began.

...Prosecutors the early days of the trial presenting evidence they say proves that Stone attempted to coerce Credico to impede efforts by congressional and federal investigators. ...
Click to expand...
ABC

- As I understand it one thing that has come out of this is that Stone basically put forth to investigators that Credico was his mediator with Assange and Wikileaks, when in fact it was Stone just acting directly.
Click to expand...
I didn't realize stand up comedy was part of law school.  I think I missed my calling.

 
Steele first appeared in connection with the Trump story as a “well-placed Western intelligence source” in a 2016 Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff. The piece claimed a Trump aide named Carter Page was discussing the lifting of sanctions with Igor Sechin, chief of the major Russian oil company Rosneft.

Steele, in fact, was a private opposition researcher hired by the “premium research” firm Fusion-GPS, on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign. The Yahoo story came out on September 23th, 2016; it would be more than a year before Steele’s status as a paid Clinton researcher would be made public.

After Isikoff’s piece came out, the Clinton campaign released a statement about how it was “chilling” to learn that “U.S. intelligence officials” were “conducting a probe into suspected meetings between Trump’s foreign policy adviser Carter Page and members of Putin’s inner circle.”

If the merry-go-round trick of commenting gravely about a story you yourself planted sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the tactic used by Vice President **** Cheney in the early 2000s, when he went on Meet the Press to comment about “a story in The New York Times this morning” regarding Saddam Hussein’s aluminum tubes. Press figures denounced such chicanery then.

Steele’s report came out in full during the transition, in a sleazy series of maneuvers by outgoing intelligence officials, who presented the incoming president with a synopsis of Steele’s work.

When details of this meeting leaked, news outlets that previously had been sitting on Steele’s report because it was unverifiable suddenly had a “hook” to release news about the briefing: Intelligence chiefs relayed “allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.”

The resulting viral furor spurred Buzzfeed to publish the entire dossier, so Americans could “make up their own minds.”

In this way, the dossier was published without ever going through a vetting process. For all the talk of hacking, this was a true Trojan-horse penetration of the American news media system (not that most media companies minded, of course).

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/christopher-steele-britain-insanity-909539/

 
ren hoek said:
Steele first appeared in connection with the Trump story as a “well-placed Western intelligence source” in a 2016 Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff. The piece claimed a Trump aide named Carter Page was discussing the lifting of sanctions with Igor Sechin, chief of the major Russian oil company Rosneft.

Steele, in fact, was a private opposition researcher hired by the “premium research” firm Fusion-GPS, on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign. The Yahoo story came out on September 23th, 2016; it would be more than a year before Steele’s status as a paid Clinton researcher would be made public.

After Isikoff’s piece came out, the Clinton campaign released a statement about how it was “chilling” to learn that “U.S. intelligence officials” were “conducting a probe into suspected meetings between Trump’s foreign policy adviser Carter Page and members of Putin’s inner circle.”

If the merry-go-round trick of commenting gravely about a story you yourself planted sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the tactic used by Vice President **** Cheney in the early 2000s, when he went on Meet the Press to comment about “a story in The New York Times this morning” regarding Saddam Hussein’s aluminum tubes. Press figures denounced such chicanery then.

Steele’s report came out in full during the transition, in a sleazy series of maneuvers by outgoing intelligence officials, who presented the incoming president with a synopsis of Steele’s work.

When details of this meeting leaked, news outlets that previously had been sitting on Steele’s report because it was unverifiable suddenly had a “hook” to release news about the briefing: Intelligence chiefs relayed “allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.”

The resulting viral furor spurred Buzzfeed to publish the entire dossier, so Americans could “make up their own minds.”

In this way, the dossier was published without ever going through a vetting process. For all the talk of hacking, this was a true Trojan-horse penetration of the American news media system (not that most media companies minded, of course).

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/christopher-steele-britain-insanity-909539/
Click to expand...
Do you consider it a positive or a negative that I know who wrote this without having to click the link?

 
Sheriff Bart said:
I didn't realize stand up comedy was part of law school.  I think I missed my calling.
Click to expand...
He’s possibly being scolded for using it as a tactic.  Bury the jury in tangentially relevant statements for hours and put them to sleep.  His best bet is for jurors to go into the room and say “who cares? They’ve wasted a week of my life. Let’s just go home fast.”

 
Henry Ford said:
He’s possibly being scolded for using it as a tactic.  Bury the jury in tangentially relevant statements for hours and put them to sleep.  His best bet is for jurors to go into the room and say “who cares? They’ve wasted a week of my life. Let’s just go home fast.”
Click to expand...
Ah, thanks GB. 

 
Henry Ford said:
He’s possibly being scolded for using it as a tactic.  Bury the jury in tangentially relevant statements for hours and put them to sleep.  His best bet is for jurors to go into the room and say “who cares? They’ve wasted a week of my life. Let’s just go home fast.”
Click to expand...
I usually just let a prosecutor do that for me. 

 
Anthony DeRosa

@Anthony

Former deputy Trump campaign chairman, Rick Gates said in open court today at the Roger Stone trial that Trump directly informed by Stone about upcoming Wikileaks releases. The campaign also coordinated and planned their efforts around Wikileaks releases.

 
Slapdash said:
Anthony DeRosa

@Anthony

Former deputy Trump campaign chairman, Rick Gates said in open court today at the Roger Stone trial that Trump directly informed by Stone about upcoming Wikileaks releases. The campaign also coordinated and planned their efforts around Wikileaks releases.
Click to expand...
WOW

 
Sheriff Bart said:
WOW
Click to expand...
I don't think this is surprising at all and was alluded to in Mueller's report. The campaign was welcoming the "help" and IIRC mentions coordinating their campaign efforts around Wikileaks and some of the disinformation campaigns. They just weren't directly participating in the illegal actions - i.e. the hacking, troll farms, identity theft, etc and therefore couldn't be charged with criminal conspiracy. Actually apparently Mueller determined Trump couldn't be charged even if he did participate in criminal conspiracy.

 
TheMagus said:
I don't think this is surprising at all and was alluded to in Mueller's report. The campaign was welcoming the "help" and IIRC mentions coordinating their campaign efforts around Wikileaks and some of the disinformation campaigns. They just weren't directly participating in the illegal actions - i.e. the hacking, troll farms, identity theft, etc and therefore couldn't be charged with criminal conspiracy. Actually apparently Mueller determined Trump couldn't be charged even if he did participate in criminal conspiracy.
Click to expand...
I agree. What's surprising is he admitted it

 
so Wikileaks goes to Stone and Stone goes to Trump directly about the hacked e-mails. We all assumed this, but now it's there, written in stone (no pun intended).

An ethical candidate goes to the FBI.  An unethical candidate considers how he can profit from a crime.  No comment on those that cheer an unethical candidate doing unethical things.

 
moleculo said:
so Wikileaks goes to Stone and Stone goes to Trump directly about the hacked e-mails. We all assumed this, but now it's there, written in stone (no pun intended).

An ethical candidate goes to the FBI.  An unethical candidate considers how he can profit from a crime.  No comment on those that cheer an unethical candidate doing unethical things.
Click to expand...
Can we put the "Russia Hoax" thing to bed now?  Turmp campaign had direct knowledge of criminal activity that benefited their campaign.  While they did not aid in the criminal enterprise, they did not alert the authorities to that criminal enterprise, thereby reaping the benefits.

If someone loots a store and leaves the goods on the sidewalk, can I be charged with theft if I pick them up and take them home?  What if I know that the exact time and place the original thief would be putting the goods on the sidewalk?

 
moleculo said:
so Wikileaks goes to Stone and Stone goes to Trump directly about the hacked e-mails. We all assumed this, but now it's there, written in stone (no pun intended).

An ethical candidate goes to the FBI.  An unethical candidate considers how he can profit from a crime.  No comment on those that cheer an unethical candidate doing unethical things.
Click to expand...
54 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

This is not related to Ukraine - but it seems like it could be important:

Bradley P. Moss@BradMossEsq ·1h

Trump denied in writing and under oath to Mueller any recollection of ever discussing WikiLeaks with Stone or being aware of Stone discussing WikiLeaks with the campaign.

Gates testified he was in the car with Trump when he Trump talked to Stone about it.
Click to expand...

 
The Z Machine said:
Can we put the "Russia Hoax" thing to bed now?  Turmp campaign had direct knowledge of criminal activity that benefited their campaign.  While they did not aid in the criminal enterprise, they did not alert the authorities to that criminal enterprise, thereby reaping the benefits.
Click to expand...
I wish.  And I don't agree with the assertion in bold.

 
Slapdash said:
Anthony DeRosa

@Anthony

Former deputy Trump campaign chairman, Rick Gates said in open court today at the Roger Stone trial that Trump directly informed by Stone about upcoming Wikileaks releases. The campaign also coordinated and planned their efforts around Wikileaks releases.
Click to expand...
The Mueller report Sec. I and its timing get weirder in retrospect. There are a few references to the campaign "and associates" in the conspiracy section, but usually it's just "the campaign." I mention that because really Stone falls under "associates" of the campaign and it seems like this piece is really left out. Same is true for the Russian government vs actors for it, such as Assange and Wikileaks. It's really as if the report and the investigation were cut short because it's obvious this Tinker to Evers to Chance with data and broadcasting of it is a pretty significant epilogue. Hard to believe that if left to their own devices that the Mueller team would not have wanted to finish this important piece, and maybe the Prigozhin/Concord trial, before finishing a truly final report.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The Mueller report Sec. I and its timing get weirder in retrospect. There are a few references to the campaign "and associates" in the conspiracy section, but usually it's just "the campaign." I mention that because really Stone falls under "associates" of the campaign and it seems like this piece is really left out. Same is true for the Russian government vs actors for it, such as Assange and Wikileaks. It's really as if the report and the investigation were cut short because it's obvious this Tinkers to Evers to Chance with data and broadcasting of it is a pretty significant epilogue. Hard to believe that if left to their own devices that the Mueller team would not have wanted to finish this important piece, and maybe the Prigozhin/Concord trial, before finishing a truly final report.
Click to expand...
The report, and especially its summary, was rushed by Barr.  This has been very clear for a while IMO.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The Mueller report Sec. I and its timing get weirder in retrospect. There are a few references to the campaign "and associates" in the conspiracy section, but usually it's just "the campaign." I mention that because really Stone falls under "associates" of the campaign and it seems like this piece is really left out. Same is true for the Russian government vs actors for it, such as Assange and Wikileaks. It's really as if the report and the investigation were cut short because it's obvious this Tinkers to Evers to Chance with data and broadcasting of it is a pretty significant epilogue. Hard to believe that if left to their own devices that the Mueller team would not have wanted to finish this important piece, and maybe the Prigozhin/Concord trial, before finishing a truly final report.
Click to expand...
I “liked” this for the Tinkers to Evers to Chance reference.  Well played (so to speak).

 
I pop in here from time to time looking for something tangible.

All I discover is that there are new names and characters introduced to this saga every week with no clear end in sight.  It reminds me of reading War and Peace.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The Mueller report Sec. I and its timing get weirder in retrospect. There are a few references to the campaign "and associates" in the conspiracy section, but usually it's just "the campaign." I mention that because really Stone falls under "associates" of the campaign and it seems like this piece is really left out. Same is true for the Russian government vs actors for it, such as Assange and Wikileaks. It's really as if the report and the investigation were cut short because it's obvious this Tinkers to Evers to Chance with data and broadcasting of it is a pretty significant epilogue. Hard to believe that if left to their own devices that the Mueller team would not have wanted to finish this important piece, and maybe the Prigozhin/Concord trial, before finishing a truly final report.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong but weren’t both Stone and Assange redacted because they were ongoing investigations?

Mueller’s report was always going to be flawed because he is too by the book. Even the obstruction section where he clearly found wrongdoing, he couldn’t come out and directly say it. The section on conspiracy had a lot damning information but not clear cut enough that he was sure they could win the case.

For example Gates revelation today could be viewed as proof that Trump lied under oath, but how he worded his answer makes the case less of a slam dunk.

 
Jacqueline Thomsen‏ @jacq_thomsen

He lists the "effects on proceeding," that House Intel never - saw docs from Stone on this - heard from Corsi - heard from Credico - heard about Stone's contacts w/ campaign - had a chance to get Stone's missing texts from 2017 & its report is inaccurate about Stone

11:14 AM - 13 Nov 2019
Click to expand...
- Apparently Stone destroyed a year's worth of phone data.

Good summary of closing here.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
4K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
211
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top