Best summary to date of the Trump persecution

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Tuesday, February 20. 2018

Best summary to date of the Trump persecution

From Andy McCarthy. Is There an Obstruction Case against President Trump?

Where is the possible crime?

Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 17:32 | Comments (38) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

His “crime” was running against Hillary and compounding it by winning.

#1 Mark on 2018-02-20 21:02 (Reply)

Lots of funny things happening with Q anon at the moment.

Anyone following?

#2 David on 2018-02-21 02:51 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Best summary to date of the Trump persecution

An investigation is necessary. The Russian government committed crimes against the United States. An independent counsel is necessary because the President fired the previous investigator over the "Russia thing", and because Russian agents may have attempted to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

QUOTE:

Why is there a special counsel in the Russia investigation? May the president of the United States be charged with obstruction based on non-criminal discretionary acts that are unquestionably within his constitutional authority as chief executive?

Those are different questions. A special counsel is certainly warranted. As to the obstruction question; yes, of course the president can obstruct justice using his constitutional authority. If the New York governor were to "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody", then fire anyone who tried to bring him to justice, it would be obstruction and an abuse of power. It's no different for the President.

QUOTE:

in this country, a prosecutor should be assigned only if there is strong evidence that a crime has been committed

The Russians hacked the DNC, attempted to infiltrate the Trump campaign, and ran "information warfare" against the United States.

#3 Zachriel on 2018-02-21 05:44 (Reply)

Almost all of your post is supposition without evidence.

There is no evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians and there is no evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC servers.

Russian influence in the 2016 election should be investigated, but Russian meddling is nothing new. The USSR used to fund the communist party in the US.

#3.1 mudbug on 2018-02-21 09:51 (Reply)

mudbug: no evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC servers.

That is incorrect. Not only do we have the findings of intelligence agencies from various countries, as well as the expert opinions of cybersecurity experts (including CrowdStrike, SecureWorks, and Symantec), but we have the actual URL used to spoof the Podesta account. We also have a pattern of behavior by the Russians. The Russians are engaged in "information warfare" against the U.S. and allies.

mudbug: Russian influence in the 2016 election should be investigated

Which was the point, after all.

#3.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-21 11:14 (Reply)

Re: supposed DNC hack

Interestingly, none of those are the FBI or any other government intelligence agencies were allowed to access their servers. So everybody who claims the DNC was hacked by the Russians is relying on information from DNC contractors (presumably SecureWorks, and Symantec did not perform their analysis for free).

Crowdstrike (and presumably the others) was hired by the DNC. The DNC is party to promoting a claim of Russian collusion through, among other ways, purchasing and promoting the Steele "dossier," which is, at best, unsubstantiated and at worst and more likely, lies. Given their desire to perpetuate this narrative, the DNC or their contractors do not constitute viable sources. Not to mention problems with Crowdstrike's reliability (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4376628/New-questions-claim-Russia-hacked-election.html).

Then there is evidence that the DNC emails were downloaded by an insider rather than a hacker (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4785866/Report-claims-hacked-DNC-emails-leak-not-hack.html).

The current investigation started out as a way to get at Trump otherwise a counter intelligence investigation would be continuing rather than a criminal prosecutorial investigation. Who knows what they're up to now but they have found few prosecutorial crimes that are not related to the prosecution.

#3.1.1.1 mudbug on 2018-02-21 13:19 (Reply)

mudbug: Interestingly, none of those are the FBI or any other government intelligence agencies were allowed to access their servers.

You don't have to physically access the servers, which are in constant use. What you need are the server logs, which were provided. The FBI said that while they prefer physical access, what was provided was sufficient for their requirements.

mudbug: Crowdstrike (and presumably the others) was hired by the DNC.

Are you seriously claiming Crowdstrike falsified the server logs to the FBI? Seriously? And again, we have the URL used to spoof Podesta's account, which can be traced to Russia.

mudbug: Then there is evidence that the DNC emails were downloaded by an insider rather than a hacker

We understand that you would prefer to believe weakly supported conspiracy theories and ignore the uncomfortable facts; but this is part and parcel of Russian "information warfare" against many countries.

#3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-21 13:54 (Reply)

The Zzzz keep using that word, facts, when they have none...

Back to your sandbox, kiddiez.

#3.1.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-02-21 14:12 (Reply)

"You don't have to physically access the servers, which are in constant use. What you need are the server logs, which were provided."

Now you're simply making stuff up.

#3.1.1.1.1.2 Hank_M on 2018-02-21 14:19 (Reply)

Hank_M: Now you're simply making stuff up.

Comey, March 20, 2017: "we got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this -- my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute."

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-21 14:40 (Reply)

"we got the forensics from the pros that they hired which"

Right. Comey being reported by CNN. Now there's a couple of sources with integrity - NOT.

But tell me Z, what exactly were those "forensics" Comey received?

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Hank_M on 2018-02-21 14:51 (Reply)

Hank_M: Comey being reported by CNN.

Huh? That was from sworn testimony before Congress.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-21 14:53 (Reply)

sworn testimony? Fine.

what exactly were those "forensics" Comey received?

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Hank_M on 2018-02-21 15:02 (Reply)

Hank_M: what exactly were those "forensics" Comey received?

They've never been released, though what was provided was considered appropriate for the investigation. It has been reported that the attack was by spear-phishing, similar to the Podesta hack, which is available.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-21 15:32 (Reply)

Then why did you claim that the server logs had been provided?

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Hank_M on 2018-02-21 15:46 (Reply)

Hank_M: Then why did you claim that the server logs had been provided?

That's what would be considered appropriate to the investigation; otherwise, of the forensics provided Comey would not have said "my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute."

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-21 16:02 (Reply)

Keep in mind that after the DNC reported that its servers had been hacked, the committee refused to cooperate with federal investigators.

Ahem.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-02-21 17:52 (Reply)

Which begs the question;

If your server was hacked by what you believe to be a foreign power with traitorous intent, why wouldn't you allow it to be searched so evidence can be gathered?

Unless of course it was never hacked...

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-02-21 18:18 (Reply)

(It raises the question...)

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Meh on 2018-02-21 18:45 (Reply)

So Comey admitted they went against the "best practice" of investigating the so-called hack by relying on a partisan third party.

Good to know.

Back to your sandbox, kiddiez.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.2 drowningpuppies on 2018-02-21 14:58 (Reply)

You know, I'm almost tempted to respond to these putative Russian activities with a big SO WHAT?

What's the point of being a sovereign state if you can't use that sovereignty to advance your own national interests by tinkering around with other sovereign states?

(By the way, if the Russians have been playing at information warfare, I can't really see what it's gained for them. They're striking out at the Olympics too!)

#3.1.2 JJM on 2018-02-21 11:47 (Reply)

JJM: By the way, if the Russians have been playing at information warfare, I can't really see what it's gained for them.

Russian "information warfare" has helped destabilized Ukraine and undermined democratic institutions elsewhere. They have caused chaos in the American polity, weakening the U.S. commitment to its allies. Russia has no intention of stopping what, to them, is a highly cost effective means of subverting their rivals.

#3.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-21 11:55 (Reply)

"They have caused chaos in the American polity, weakening the U.S. commitment to its allies."

We'll just have to disagree about that; your bogeyman approach to the relatively hapless Russians is unconvincing.

If, as you claim, there's "chaos in the American polity", the problem is entirely homegrown and self-inflicted.

#3.1.2.1.1 JJM on 2018-02-21 12:01 (Reply)

JJM: your bogeyman approach to the relatively hapless Russians is unconvincing.

The Russians are weak. That's why they resort to "information warfare", which is a relatively low-cost way to undermine open societies. They have found a chink to exploit in liberal democracies.

JJM: If, as you claim, there's "chaos in the American polity", the problem is entirely homegrown and self-inflicted.

Hacking the DNC, then releasing the stolen emails for maximum political effect, is clearly an external source of political chaos.

#3.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-21 12:17 (Reply)

For God's sake, stop whining, it's so unbecoming of the most powerful country in the world.

You're fussing about Russia? The US has a GDP 13 times the size of the Russian one. In fact, Russia's GDP is even smaller than Italy's.

You should be far more concerned with the People's Republic of China.

C'mon now, we expect more from Americans than all this dithering over the Russians.

#3.1.2.1.1.1.1 JJM on 2018-02-21 12:41 (Reply)

JJM: You're fussing about Russia? The US has a GDP 13 times the size of the Russian one. In fact, Russia's GDP is even smaller than Italy's.

Which is why they engage in "information warfare" as a force multiplier, sort of a judo move—use the opponent's strength against them.

JJM: C'mon now, we expect more from Americans than all this dithering over the Russians.

Certainly the Americans should investigate illegal activities, and close the door to further meddling. Or in the immortal words of George W. Bush: “There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”

#3.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-21 14:00 (Reply)

Zzzzz: If the New York governor were to "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody", then fire anyone who tried to bring him to justice, it would be obstruction and an abuse of power. It's no different for the President.

Strawman much, kiddiez?

Back to your sandbox, kiddiez.

#3.2 drowningpuppies on 2018-02-21 15:23 (Reply)

Im curious why there isn't a 'real' investigation into Hillary Clinton's email crimes, why senate democrats hired a couple of paki spies to run their IT department, how the OPM database got hacked and stolen, why we're still in the dark about most of what transpired in Benghazi prior to and during the attack in 2012, why so many senior military officers were sacked by Obama, why Ft. Hood was called workplace violence and why military prosecutors wouldn't allow Hassan's email exchanges with a known terrorist to be presented as evidence at his trial, etc., etc., etc., etc. While the republicans hold the house, the senate and the Whitehouse, democrats are still running the country. It's not called the stupid party for nothing.

#4 Arty on 2018-02-21 08:33 (Reply)

Arty: Im curious why there isn't a 'real' investigation into Hillary Clinton's email crimes

Perhaps you forgot. The FBI already investigated the Clinton emails. They even reopened the investigation just before the election.

#4.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-21 11:16 (Reply)

The FBI already investigated whitewashed the Clinton emails. They even reopened the investigation put on a second coat just before the election. FTFY

#4.1.1 BillH on 2018-02-21 12:29 (Reply)

BillH: The FBI already investigated whitewashed the Clinton emails. They even reopened the investigation put on a second coat just before the election. FTFY

That makes no sense, of course. If they were trying to help Clinton, they could have simply delayed publicly announcing the new information until after the election—which is the proper FBI protocol, by the way.

#4.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-21 14:03 (Reply)

Comey had little choice but to announce the reopening of the Clinton email investigation once the NYPD found more incriminating evidence on Anthony Weiner's laptop.

Are you kidz ignoring that fact?

Back to your sandbox, kiddiez.

#4.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-02-21 14:31 (Reply)

Zachriel, the IG investigation is related to the Hillary Clinton email case. That was one of the reasons for the IG investigation...did you not know that? Maybe you should wait until the IG issues his report before you claim Hillary is 'innocent.'

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/372457-ig-poised-to-reignite-war-over-fbis-clinton-case

#4.1.2 MissT on 2018-02-21 12:38 (Reply)

MissT: the IG investigation is related to the Hillary Clinton email case. That was one of the reasons for the IG investigation...did you not know that? Maybe you should wait until the IG issues his report before you claim Hillary is 'innocent.'

We never made that claim. We said the FBI had already investigated the Clinton emails. Unless new evidence is uncovered, the end result of the investigation will not change.

#4.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-21 14:07 (Reply)

Zzzz: We never made that claim.
*****
No but y'all implied exactly that while claiming Trump was guilty of collusion with the Russkies and obstructing justice.

Do y'all ever re-read all that bullshit you've posted.?

Get back to your sandbox, kiddiez.

#4.1.2.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-02-21 14:48 (Reply)

The royal 'we,' so interesting.

You implied that Clinton had already been investigated...and since that 'investigation' yielded no charges, you implied that she was innocent.

I think that is a fair assumption on my part. Is it the habit of the FBI to NOT charge people who are guilty of committing crimes? I didn't know.

I think you are going to be surprised by the IG's findings. We have already peeked behind the curtain, and it doesn't look good for her.

#4.1.2.1.2 MissT on 2018-02-21 17:38 (Reply)

MissT: You implied that Clinton had already been investigated...and since that 'investigation' yielded no charges, you implied that she was innocent.

Not guilty of a criminal offense, but hardly without blame.

#4.1.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-21 17:58 (Reply)

No. The end.

Mueller is not going after obstruction. Get over the fantasy.

So far the only 'close to Trump' person indicted is Flynn, and his guilty plea is looking more and more like a set-up. Once that goes, what do we have left?

Some sleazy money launderers who have worked for more than just Trump in previous elections...and who did their crimes before they ever got on the Trump team.

If Mueller is looking at the same evidence as several Congressional committees and the IG, they are all going to end up in the same place.

#5 MissT on 2018-02-21 11:35 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, February 20. 2018

Best summary to date of the Trump persecution