he also tried to shut down the Mueller probe last fall

https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/08/28/ron-desantis-attempting-to-stop-criminal-investigation-into-theft-that-benefitted-him/

 

 

remember that McConnell is complicit in all of this:

 

1 minute ago, StrangeSox said:

he also tried to shut down the Mueller probe last fall

https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/08/28/ron-desantis-attempting-to-stop-criminal-investigation-into-theft-that-benefitted-him/

We already knew that about Mitch, I'm noting that because we now officially know a member of the House Republican Caucus was involved, now we also know that Paul Ryan and the House Majority, the folks who put out that weak investigation report, they are also defending their own members who conspired with a foreign intelligence agency. 

Good read here, in particular #15 and #34

 

12 minutes ago, Big Hurtin said:

Good read here, in particular #15 and #34

 

I've mentioned 34 previously. His asking the Russians to get into Hillary's emails was televised. 

13 minutes ago, raBBit said:

 Wikileaks already said it wasn’t from a Russian hacker that they received the files.

Oh wow now there's a trustworthy source.

This just in, Canada has pretty much taken over the US due to their monopoly on oil and gas pipelines entering the country...they can turn them all off simultaneously (or sabotage them), it’s The Purge 5 all over again.

It's also possible (likely?) that the person who was laundering GRU stuff through wikileaks didn't email Assange by announcing that he was, in fact, working for GRU. They probably presented themselves as 'hacktivists,' just like the indictment says they did to many of the Americans they were in contact with.

 

 

 

Also FYI the indictment refutes the claims that the information had to have been offloaded locally and explains the method in which it was done remotely via a rented server housed in Illinois.

10 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

 

 

Also FYI the indictment refutes the claims that the information had to have been offloaded locally and explains the method in which it was done remotely via a rented server housed in Illinois.

 

Illinois... hmmmm someone has really been speaking out about this.. (I kid.)

3 minutes ago, raBBit said:

https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2017/01/12/fake-evidence/

Not saying that I believe or disbelieve Gufficer 2.0, but since his tweets are admissible, I would imagine his explanatory blog posts are as well.

Wow that's weak sauce. You're joking right? 

12 minutes ago, raBBit said:

https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2017/01/12/fake-evidence/

Not saying that I believe or disbelieve Gufficer 2.0, but since his tweets are admissible, I would imagine his explanatory blog posts are as well.

Letters that are self serving almost have 0 value in court as he can testify to that anyways (if he actually took the stand.) (edit) And if he didnt take the stand, it would likely be inadmissible. 

It would be like OJ writing in a blog "I didnt murder anyone." What value does that have? 

Edited July 13, 20187 yr by Soxbadger

10 minutes ago, raBBit said:

What is weak sauce? I was making the point that this suspect character has an internet history that serves many purposes. If you have a narrative, there is a Guccifer 2.0 quote/tweet that serves your purpose no matter what narrative you're serving. He's not valid when he supports the blue team and invalid (or "weak sauce") when he supports the red team. Thinking that would be hypocritical. 

StrangeSox took one of Guccifer 2.0's tweets and used it to make a conclusion the post just before mine. You didn't find that to be weak sauce. I just take a post showing a contrasting viewpoint from Guccifer 2.0 and didn't draw any of my own conclusions as a result. Yet I am weak sauce and joking. 

I know you're really digging in on this militantly virtuous pouting act with Trump as POTUS now but can you at least keep the civility to a level where your post actually speaks to what you're taking exception to? You know, as opposed to just viscerally reacting to someone you know thinks differently than you. 

So the blog post denies something after the fact, once investigations are starting to form around it...and you're willing to take that denial at face value and present it. Right. The start of investigations around a crime involving treason of the President elect is no reason for someone to deny something.

At the same time as the tweet above where the account was working with wikileaks, people were tracking back the trail of documents to Russian servers, but I don't even need to bother linking all that because the Dutch intelligence service had actually broken into the Russian hacking group's electronics and they've shared that with the FBI. Mueller's group literally has video of your Russian friends composing that tweet. That's how they know the exact times of everything in the indictment today.

Just now, raBBit said:

I didn't use the post as support for an argument. I didn't draw any conclusions based on the post. 

What is the difference between a G2 blog post and tweet? What makes one valid and one invalid. You scrolled right past SS post that drew a conclusion based off of a G2 tweet and found nothing to take exception with there. Then my post, which intentionally made the point to put no weight in the G2 post, prompted you to respond taking exception and then using an OJ Simpson murder trial straw man as your support. 

I have no idea what youre talking about.

You posted about whether a statement could be used in court, I wrote a response about that.

To be fair, I didnt read any of the other posts except to make a joke. So my post was not in relation to theirs at all, it only was to answer what I thought was a serious question about civil procedure.

There was no straw man argument, I was just explaining why an exculpatory self written statement doesnt necessarily have a lot of value in court.

Again, thought it was a legitimate civil procedure question. 

Bolton cancelled from a CNN appearance by the White Hiuse. Sarah Sanders says it’s in response for Acosta disrespecting Trump by asking him a question Trump refused to answer because he said CNN is fake news. It is all recorded. 

 

There should be outrage, however, this has become the norm so people just expect it. I guess that treating people with respect Sarah tweeted when she was refused service is more BS. Go figure. And what she said about the press when the newsroom was shot up, more BS.

 

Trump tells CBS the EU is a foe of US.

14 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Trump tells CBS the EU is a foe of US.

Trump doing exactly what Putin would want him to at every turn.  Just awesome 

 

This press conference has been every bit as dumb and horrifying as you'd expect. Regardless of whether there was knowing collusion with Russia or not, Putin 100% helped Trump win and Trump is eager for his help again this year and in 2020.

 

lmao RIP American hegemony

incredible

 

 

 

just going to openly believe Putin over my own intelligence agencies, definitely not a traitor to my country

 

e:

 

Edited July 16, 20187 yr by StrangeSox

I honestly don't think Trump understands any of the stuff with Russia.  I don't think he really cares to, it isn't hurting him and might be helping him, so why bother.

People asking Trump about Crimea lol, do you think Trump even has a basic understanding of what the history of that situation is or even cares?

Edited July 16, 20187 yr by GoSox05

embarrassing the extremely dumb, corrupt and compromised POTUS by asking him very basic and critical policy questions relating to the guy he just met in private with is good imo

Trump will never be tough on Russia for one simple reason:

 

 Trump Organization was able to expand during the financial crisis because “We don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.” Per Eric Trump

Bill O'Reilly's most recent column basically states Putin beat Trump. So maybe today is finally the line getting crossed. 

I know the MAGA people wont care, but I just cant believe that the rest of congress can turn a blind eye.