LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Mhmm. Although let's hope the last election was an outlier, because the same thing could have been said had HRC won. It was a lose-lose proposition teed up for us.

New filing says Russian IRC is working hard to discredit the Mueller probe. Probably because they’re innocent. Matt Whitaker said this is almost over? Now I get his sweating. Trump’s missing in action.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... e-russians

If the Dunning-Kruger effect is what you believe Trump has, what does that say about America...phew, we are eff'd

It makes sense to me that unskeptical, overly-sure voters would vote for a candidate who has those exact same tendencies. Recall that oh-so-telling Trump quote -- "I love the poorly educated!"

Partisan-ship and DKE mutually reinforce. Pretty good explanation for most of the programming on Fox News.

While this clearly happens on both sides, imo it is much worse on the right.

Trinity wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 4:33 pm New filing says Russian IRC is working hard to discredit the Mueller probe. Probably because they’re innocent. Matt Whitaker said this is almost over? Now I get his sweating. Trump’s missing in action.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... e-russians

This has nothing to do with Trump or US defendants or suspects.
Apparently Mueller didn't figure any of the indicted Russians lawyers would show up & ask for discovery.

FBI investigators had found no evidence that government servers holding the data had been hacked, according to Mueller’s team, pointing instead to a leak on the Russian side.

Mueller disclosed the leak in a filing as part of his prosecution of Concord Management and Consulting, a Russian company that allegedly funded hacking operations by Russia’s notorious Internet Research Agency (IRA).

The filing argued that attorneys for Concord should not be given access to “sensitive” evidence gathered by Mueller’s team for the case.

A "speaking" indictment, issued to justify the SC investigation, turns into an exploding cigar.
No Russians are going to show up in a US court, but the indictments revealed sources & methods inside the IRA's work spaces in St Petersburg.
All it did was take the NSA & CIA crown jewels & disclose them -- to run up the score.
That evidence should have been shared with the Gang of 8, inside a SCIF, with no note taking.
They could have then convinced the US public that the Russians did it, ...without divulging specifics.

Now that’s ridiculous. Republicans are admitting to nothing, will admit to nothing. Btw: These are American leakers Mueller doesn’t trust with classified information.

A key line the filing, “the sensitive discovery identifies uncharged individuals and entities that the government believes are continuing to engage in operations that interfere with lawful U.S. government functions like those activities charged in the indictment”

Meanwhile, the Kremlin responds to reports that no staff or interpreters were present during Trump’s conversation with Putin at the G20:
“It’s none of our business whether Trump had an interpreter; Putin’s interpreter is always by his side — we have stability and order in that regard.”

[CNN Breaking News] Special Counsel : Russians altering evidence in Mueller probe to discredit investigation.

The world is laughing at us. Punked by Putin again.

American leakers ? US lawyers can't share discovery evidence with their clients & their Russian lawyers ?

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:07 pm [CNN Breaking News] Special Counsel : Russians altering evidence in Mueller probe to discredit investigation.

The world is laughing at us. Punked by Putin again.

American leakers ? US lawyers can't share discovery evidence with their clients & their Russian lawyers ?

(Edited) It was subject to a protective order, arguably violated because the information was used for disinformation purposes. Rough day for the defense lawyers, who are clearly worried about having violated a protective order in a, um, rather serious federal case.

We really should just allow Russia to interfere and abandon this entire counter-intelligence effort, as we do not want to risk being punked by Putin again. Our fragile national ego just can't take it anymore.

...or not criminalize counter intel investigations when there's no prospect of prosecution.

A waste of resources & unnecessary disclosure or confirmation of intel gathering sources & methods.

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:31 pm ...or not criminalize counter intel investigations when there's no prospect of prosecution.

Good point, but what if Americans were involved? You'd still prosecute them, right? And doing so might require establishing the underlying crime (by non-Americans) before you could establish a conspiracy to commit crimes by Americans? Right? Same page, or no?

Chips O'Toole wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:39 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:31 pm ...or not criminalize counter intel investigations when there's no prospect of prosecution.

Good point, but what if Americans were involved? You'd still prosecute them, right? And doing so might require establishing the underlying crime (by non-Americans) before you could establish a conspiracy to commit crimes by Americans? Right? Same page, or no?

Yes, of course, if that's the case.

But why not wait until you can make the case against a US citizen, before exposing all that highly sensitive intel to discovery.
...or if you just charge the Americans, you don't have to share that intel with Russians who will never stand trial.

You don't have to worry about US lawyers sharing the discovery evidence with Russian lawyers.

That evidence should have been shared with the Gang of 8, inside a SCIF, with no note taking.
They could have then convinced the US public that the Russians did it, ...without divulging specifics.

You really get more ridiculous with every post you throw against the wall to see if it’ll stick. Really un-forkin believable.

Tell us you don’t remember Mitch McConnells early reactions about Russian meddling.

Honestly, get a clue Randy. Jeebus.

..

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:46 pm

Chips O'Toole wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:39 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:31 pm ...or not criminalize counter intel investigations when there's no prospect of prosecution.

Good point, but what if Americans were involved? You'd still prosecute them, right? And doing so might require establishing the underlying crime (by non-Americans) before you could establish a conspiracy to commit crimes by Americans? Right? Same page, or no?

Yes, of course, if that's the case.

But why not wait until you can make the case against a US citizen, before exposing all that highly sensitive intel to discovery.
...or if you just charge the Americans, you don't have to share that intel with Russians who will never stand trial.

You don't have to worry about US lawyers sharing the discovery evidence with Russian lawyers.

These were American lawyers.

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:46 pm

Chips O'Toole wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:39 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:31 pm ...or not criminalize counter intel investigations when there's no prospect of prosecution.

Good point, but what if Americans were involved? You'd still prosecute them, right? And doing so might require establishing the underlying crime (by non-Americans) before you could establish a conspiracy to commit crimes by Americans? Right? Same page, or no?

Yes, of course, if that's the case.

But why not wait until you can make the case against a US citizen, before exposing all that highly sensitive intel to discovery.
...or if you just charge the Americans, you don't have to share that intel with Russians who will never stand trial.

You don't have to worry about US lawyers sharing the discovery evidence with Russian lawyers.

Ok, now we're onto something. You are absolutely right about the significance of exposing all of this intel. I think Robert Mueller is also aware of this risk. So what does it tell you that he is clearly willing to accept the risk here (by "criminalizing" counter-intelligence)? Does the former FBI director just have too much prosecutor DNA, rendering him obtuse as to these concerns? Maybe. None of us knows, of course, but I happen to think it means he believes highly-placed Americans are very much involved in the crimes and he realizes that such Americans are so highly placed that this is as much of a public and political case as one could ever imagine -- a case potentially involving an unindictable person and his family members, which means he needs to build his case in public as much as he can under circumstances where it might hamper his own efforts and many inside forces are actively opposing him. I have to think Mueller is walking on a very tight rope right now. Few could handle the job.

Chips O'Toole wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:07 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:46 pm

Chips O'Toole wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:39 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:31 pm ...or not criminalize counter intel investigations when there's no prospect of prosecution.

Good point, but what if Americans were involved? You'd still prosecute them, right? And doing so might require establishing the underlying crime (by non-Americans) before you could establish a conspiracy to commit crimes by Americans? Right? Same page, or no?

Yes, of course, if that's the case.

But why not wait until you can make the case against a US citizen, before exposing all that highly sensitive intel to discovery.
...or if you just charge the Americans, you don't have to share that intel with Russians who will never stand trial.

You don't have to worry about US lawyers sharing the discovery evidence with Russian lawyers.

Ok, now we're onto something. You are absolutely right about the significance of exposing all of this intel. I think Robert Mueller is also aware of this risk. So what does it tell you that he is clearly willing to accept the risk here (by "criminalizing" counter-intelligence)? Does the former FBI director just have too much prosecutor DNA, rendering him obtuse as to these concerns? Maybe. None of us knows, of course, but I happen to think it means he believes highly-placed Americans are very much involved in the crimes and he realizes that such Americans are so highly placed that this is as much of a public and political case as one could ever imagine -- a case potentially involving an unindictable person and his family members, which means he needs to build his case in public as much as he can under circumstances where it might hamper his own efforts and many inside forces are actively opposing him. I have to think Mueller is walking on a very tight rope right now. Few could handle the job.

There's only one American who is not indictable & it's unlikely that he acted alone.

I still don't see the need to indict the Russians if they'll never go to trial.
Their indictments are just unproven allegations.
Indicting them (in advance) is not a prerequisite to indicting Americans who may be linked to them.

Are you suggesting that the indictments of Russians who will never go to trial is Mueller's only was to get his allegations before the (D) House,
& a ploy to build public support for impeachment ?

jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:55 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:46 pm

Chips O'Toole wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:39 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:31 pm ...or not criminalize counter intel investigations when there's no prospect of prosecution.

Good point, but what if Americans were involved? You'd still prosecute them, right? And doing so might require establishing the underlying crime (by non-Americans) before you could establish a conspiracy to commit crimes by Americans? Right? Same page, or no?

Yes, of course, if that's the case.

But why not wait until you can make the case against a US citizen, before exposing all that highly sensitive intel to discovery.
...or if you just charge the Americans, you don't have to share that intel with Russians who will never stand trial.

You don't have to worry about US lawyers sharing the discovery evidence with Russian lawyers.

These were American lawyers.

US = American, ...except in hockey.

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:33 pm

That evidence should have been shared with the Gang of 8, inside a SCIF, with no note taking.
They could have then convinced the US public that the Russians did it, ...without divulging specifics.

You really get more ridiculous with every post you throw against the wall to see if it’ll stick. Really un-forkin believable.

Tell us you don’t remember Mitch McConnells early reactions about Russian meddling.

Honestly, get a clue Randy. Jeebus.

Schiff & Warner talk enough for all 8.

McConnell wasn't shown the intel backing up the indictment of the Russians, because they didn't have it all yet.

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:44 pm

Chips O'Toole wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:07 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:46 pm

Chips O'Toole wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:39 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:31 pm ...or not criminalize counter intel investigations when there's no prospect of prosecution.

Good point, but what if Americans were involved? You'd still prosecute them, right? And doing so might require establishing the underlying crime (by non-Americans) before you could establish a conspiracy to commit crimes by Americans? Right? Same page, or no?

Yes, of course, if that's the case.

But why not wait until you can make the case against a US citizen, before exposing all that highly sensitive intel to discovery.
...or if you just charge the Americans, you don't have to share that intel with Russians who will never stand trial.

You don't have to worry about US lawyers sharing the discovery evidence with Russian lawyers.

Ok, now we're onto something. You are absolutely right about the significance of exposing all of this intel. I think Robert Mueller is also aware of this risk. So what does it tell you that he is clearly willing to accept the risk here (by "criminalizing" counter-intelligence)? Does the former FBI director just have too much prosecutor DNA, rendering him obtuse as to these concerns? Maybe. None of us knows, of course, but I happen to think it means he believes highly-placed Americans are very much involved in the crimes and he realizes that such Americans are so highly placed that this is as much of a public and political case as one could ever imagine -- a case potentially involving an unindictable person and his family members, which means he needs to build his case in public as much as he can under circumstances where it might hamper his own efforts and many inside forces are actively opposing him. I have to think Mueller is walking on a very tight rope right now. Few could handle the job.

Are you suggesting that the indictments of Russians who will never go to trial is Mueller's only was to get his allegations before the (D) House,
& a ploy to build public support for impeachment ?

Yes, although "ploy" is an interesting and expositive choice of words when you had so many others from which to choose. I also suspect Mueller hasn't been waiting for the House to turn D, as you suggest, and has simply expected politicians of all stripes to react to his revelations as any red-blooded American would. (Although that was clearly naive, as even patriots like Salty aren't buying any.)

Have you not noticed all the speaking indictments, which didn't need to be? I believe Mueller's objective all along has been to educate the public (and their mostly hapless Congressional representatives). Indeed, I sometimes imagine Mueller sitting at his desk at lunch, eating a tuna sandwich, and thinking "My goodness, we revealed publicly that x happened, and nothing seems to have come of it," and then shrugging and taking another bite of his sandwich. At first, the speaking indictments of non-Americans seemed like a necessity to make it politically difficult for Trump to shut down Mueller's investigation, but now it seems entirely different. He seems to be building an impeachment case on his own, on the assumption no one else will provide an assist. I think he sees this as his cross to bear. And on that note, one of the greatest of all time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szdKx9O31A0

I say "ploy" because it's a strategy to build a case with the public, knowing the allegations in most of his "speaking" indictments will never have to be proven in court. It's a way to circumvent his DoJ reporting chain.

I'm sure the shift of the House from (R) to (D) was never considered in his strategy.

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:35 am I say "ploy" because it's a strategy to build a case with the public, knowing the allegations in most of his "speaking" indictments will never have to be proven in court. It's a way to circumvent his DoJ reporting chain.

Right, Mueller is taking advantage of the fact that his target cannot be indicted and therefore he doesn't have to prove anything in court. Got it. The reporting chain is what matters here. Salty, be honest, did you order the Code Red?

Which Code Red ? The dawn raid on Roger Stone's bunker ? Very impressive video.