Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Russian Connection

The Russian Connection (Page 20)
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2018, 09:44 PM
 
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b01ce33eb43d3a
Page, a key figure in the Republican-authored memo released Friday that Trump allies claim shows FBI bias against the president, bragged about his Kremlin connections in an Aug. 13, 2013, letter to an academic publication about a manuscript he had submitted, according to Time.

“Over the past half year, I have had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin in preparation for their presidency of the G-20 Summit next month,” Page wrote in the letter.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018, 08:22 PM
 
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...snt-there.html
Investigators on the House Intelligence Committee have pored over thousands of emails from the Trump transition team but can’t find Pence’s name in any of them, even though he led the transition, said a Democrat familiar with the House’s Russia probe. The Democrat was not authorized to detail private documents and spoke on condition of anonymity.
That's a pretty big claim.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018, 09:00 PM
 
So either:
A) Pence is very old-fashioned, and doesn't do new-fangled electronic communications. If he ever gets sworn in, this would be a relief for Twitter.

or B) Someone is destroying emails, or failing to cough them up. Such a someone is risking serious jail time.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018, 09:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
So either:
A) Pence is very old-fashioned, and doesn't do new-fangled electronic communications. If he ever gets sworn in, this would be a relief for Twitter.

or B) Someone is destroying emails, or failing to cough them up. Such a someone is risking serious jail time.
C) Private server
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018, 09:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
As I understand it, they subpoena the person for all relevant records on a subject, or during a time period. The job will likely be handed to an underling, but the person subpoenaed is the obligated party.

Regardless of where the records are; private server, glove box, or a hidden nook at the gas station - they still fall under B) - someone failed to cough them up. And/or deleted them. Where the records are stored is irrelevant so long as they remain in US jurisdiction. Pence might have a case if his AOL account stores those emails in Ireland.

"Turn over copies of all relevant records, but only if they can be found on your office server." -- pretty sure this is not how subpoenas are worded.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2018, 09:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
As I understand it, they subpoena the person for all relevant records on a subject, or during a time period. The job will likely be handed to an underling, but the person subpoenaed is the obligated party.

Regardless of where the records are; private server, glove box, or a hidden nook at the gas station - they still fall under B) - someone failed to cough them up. And/or deleted them. Where the records are stored is irrelevant so long as they remain in US jurisdiction. Pence might have a case if his AOL account stores those emails in Ireland.

"Turn over copies of all relevant records, but only if they can be found on your office server." -- pretty sure this is not how subpoenas are worded.
Remember, they were arguing transition emails fell under privilege. I wouldn't be surprised if they hoodwinked House Intel without telling them.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 01:54 PM
 
There's no allegation that any American was knowingly involved in the conspiracy, Rosenstein said. Nor was there an allegation that the efforts of the defendants affected the outcome of the election. The indictment, he told reporters, is a reminder that "people are not always who they appear to be." He said the defendants wanted to undermine confidence in our democracy.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 04:48 PM
 
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 05:12 PM
 
Hahaha found on Reddit.

Expect the Redcaps to seize on that word “unwitting” as a blanket absolution of the whole Trump campaign staff...
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 05:16 PM
 
77- On or about August 1 8, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators sent money via interstate wire to another real U.S. person recruited by the ORGANIZATION, using one of their false U.S. personas, to build a cage large enough to hold an actress depicting Clinton in a prison uniform.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
There's no allegation that any American was knowingly involved in the conspiracy, Rosenstein said. Nor was there an allegation that the efforts of the defendants affected the outcome of the election. The indictment, he told reporters, is a reminder that "people are not always who they appear to be." He said the defendants wanted to undermine confidence in our democracy.
The speed with which this was posted to the thread after the news broke is impressive.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 02:03 PM
 
I'd like to know how close the Russians got to tampering with electronic votes. I always vote on paper, due to the closed-source nature of e-voting machines in the US. As well as the vendors' who-cares attitude each time security flaws are found.

If the Russians altered some votes, it might finally force open-source requirements for e-vote machines. Along with mandatory security audits, and mandatory fixing of any issues.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 06:11 PM
 
I see it as more likely they’d use indirect methods.

Altering voter rolls, etc.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 06:15 PM
 
Equally important I find is the question of whether people can trust the voting process, including whether voting machines are easy to use (remember those ballots in 2000), accurately tally the votes and are resistant to tampering. Doing no security analysis at all, if your votes are recorded on a 3.5" floppy disk, you are doing it wrong!

I still find the obsession with voting machines quite weird, paper ballots work well, are not susceptible to fridge magnets and are easy to understand.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I still find the obsession with voting machines quite weird, paper ballots work well ...
I think it's cost. An all-electronic election would cost far less than paper + polling stations. If the cost barrier to elections were removed, things could get interesting ...

I've dreamed of an option for voters to determine their representative's vote on an important bill. If a sufficient number of registered voters participated, they could cast their rep's vote. Overriding their party loyalty, bad judgement, or favor owed to xxxx industry.

We'd effectively have a representative democracy on matters regular people need not bother with, or that their rep isn't corrupt on. With democracy-by-district on more important matters. Elected reps would no longer have a free pass to screw the populace over after winning our votes.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 08:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I still find the obsession with voting machines quite weird, paper ballots work well, are not susceptible to fridge magnets and are easy to understand.
It's about hanging chads. The 2000 Florida recount exposed how ****ing poorly some states administer the election and it scarred half the nation. Hence, the obsession with 'easier' voting (The UI in PA is straightforward, can't vouch for other states).

Security unfortunately, was never considered. What's galling is since Diebold and 2004 people have wanted more secure and verifiable systems, but bupkis. I think part of it is after spending $$$ to change over to electronic voting, no states were going to shelve working machines and spend another round of $$$.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 08:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I'd like to know how close the Russians got to tampering with electronic votes. I always vote on paper, due to the closed-source nature of e-voting machines in the US. As well as the vendors' who-cares attitude each time security flaws are found.

If the Russians altered some votes, it might finally force open-source requirements for e-vote machines. Along with mandatory security audits, and mandatory fixing of any issues.
So, conspiratorial question: Would the government have a motivation to not reveal if vote tampering was suspected or confirmed (depending on how widespread it was)? If there was legitimate vote tampering found in one of the swing states that meant in retrospect, the outcome of the election was uncertain, couldn't that promote a constitutional crisis? It'd probably be the only thing worse for the country than Trump getting impeached.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I see it as more likely they’d use indirect methods.

Altering voter rolls, etc.
No one expected the Russians to participate in voter suppression.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 09:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I think it's cost. An all-electronic election would cost far less than paper + polling stations. If the cost barrier to elections were removed, things could get interesting ...
I don't think this is about cost: a less safe election process is probably also cheaper than a safer one. Paper ballots are simple to understand and if you stick to best practices it is easier to have that process be safe and accountable. Ordinary citizens can understand what is going on, and election fraud is (statistically) detectable still. You also wouldn't have less polling stations, because in most places, the problem is proximity to the nearest polling station and the amount of time you need to wait to fulfill your civic duty.

IMHO electronic voting machines solve the wrong problem. If we allow for computers to aid voting, we should enable voting from home. Of course, that is a much more difficult problem overall, but that is what would make it easier for people to participate and also vote more often if that is what you desire.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I've dreamed of an option for voters to determine their representative's vote on an important bill. If a sufficient number of registered voters participated, they could cast their rep's vote. Overriding their party loyalty, bad judgement, or favor owed to xxxx industry.
I'm not sure whether I properly represent what you have in mind here, but more direct democracy is not a cure for rot in other places. I think a representative democracy is still the best system out there, and voters often don't appreciate the complexity behind a topic. Just look at the Brexit referendum, which shows you the worst of all worlds: it was a non-binding referendum on a broad policy position rather than a specific law. A lot of people voted for Brexit because it was a proxy for something else, specifically immigration. And because of that, it was utterly useless to steer a democracy.

Elements of direct democracy should be used sparingly, and although I am in favor of letting people vote, I don't think they should take over the vote of their representative. A referendum should be instead of a vote in Congress. In my opinion, a referendum should have to pass a high hurdle so that people don't end up having to vote on minutiæ. And in a referendum, people must vote on laws rather than policy positions. And the more local things get, the more am I ok with sprinkling in more elements of direct democracy.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
We'd effectively have a representative democracy on matters regular people need not bother with, or that their rep isn't corrupt on. With democracy-by-district on more important matters. Elected reps would no longer have a free pass to screw the populace over after winning our votes.
In case of the US, I don't think this is the right solution. Disdain of the population for politicians, political institutions and the state at large, coupled with the incentives politicians (have to) have, is a vicious cycle. And I reckon that money in politics will adapt if you add elements of direct democracy.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 09:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It's about hanging chads. The 2000 Florida recount exposed how ****ing poorly some states administer the election and it scarred half the nation. Hence, the obsession with 'easier' voting (The UI in PA is straightforward, can't vouch for other states).
Yeah, and back then it was heavily tinged by partisanship, even though it shouldn't be: if you want to vote for one particular politician, it should be easy and obvious how to give your vote to this person and not one of the competitors.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Security unfortunately, was never considered. What's galling is since Diebold and 2004 people have wanted more secure and verifiable systems, but bupkis. I think part of it is after spending $$$ to change over to electronic voting, no states were going to shelve working machines and spend another round of $$$.
That's another thing with anything electronic: you absolutely need to update these systems regularly, as soon as a vulnerability is discovered, you need to patch it (in soft- and hardware). This is really one area where I think paper ballots have an obvious advantage: the technology won't change, and the only way to improve here are procedural.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 09:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I think it's cost. An all-electronic election would cost far less than paper + polling stations. If the cost barrier to elections were removed, things could get interesting
People who work at the polls are volunteers.

That’s, I dunno, half a million human security audits.

I don’t think we can make an electronic system this secure.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 10:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It's about hanging chads.
But that was ultimately very fixable.

I don’t know about other places, but we use pens, and the scanner gives a warning if there’s an under, over, or double-vote.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 10:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
But that was ultimately very fixable.

I don’t know about other places, but we use pens, and the scanner gives a warning if there’s an under, over, or double-vote.
No argument here.

Two theories:

1. Given it was the internet boom, going electronic seemed the like the natural progression for voting
2. Crony capitalism saw an opportunity to sell the government some expensive hardware

Edit:
Originally Posted by subego View Post
People who work at the polls are volunteers.

That’s, I dunno, half a million human security audits.

I don’t think we can make an electronic system this secure.
This presupposes they're good at their job and well informed.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 10:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I think it's cost. An all-electronic election would cost far less than paper + polling stations. If the cost barrier to elections were removed, things could get interesting
Originally Posted by subego View Post
People who work at the polls are volunteers.
The pollsters are volunteers, yes. But you have printing costs, supply purchases, mailing costs, and long time delays. Plus secure transportation of ballots to counting locations. And storage after, in case a recount is ordered. Then there are time costs. Ballots must be mailed in advance, and the contents fixed earlier. Candidates / referenda must be registered/certified earlier still. All told, elections have non-trivial costs.

I do like the vote-from-home idea, that's where I was going. With secure e-vote, the constituents could force their rep's vote. If a majority votes one way, and that majority is larger than the one that elected the rep, then the popular vote becomes the rep's vote.

It would require high public interest to get nearly as many people on board as for the real election. So vote overrides would happen only when it's important, and the rep is significantly out of touch with their public. The recent tax cuts for example, and the Congress vote to kill ISP privacy rules. Or the upcoming vote to override the FCC and restore federal net neutrality. All these issues are non-partisan among the population, of high public interest, and in which a majority of reps are out of step with their public.

Other potential votes come to mind, like another copyright extension attempt. Or attempts to strip Section 230 DMCA immunity. Or the DMCA's forbidding of circumvention, even when the protected content is legal to access. Or surveillance reform. In each of these examples, reps either owe industries for re-election contributions, or seem apathetic.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 10:59 PM
 
They need an app to be able to securely vote from your phone.

Then it's game over.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 11:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
No argument here.

Two theories:

1. Given it was the internet boom, going electronic seemed the like the natural progression for voting
2. Crony capitalism saw an opportunity to sell the government some expensive hardware

Edit:

This presupposes they're good at their job and well informed.
What I’m presupposing is whatever flaws the human audit system may entail, it’s for all intents and purposes unhackable.

I’m going to add a rather unpleasant third theory for why we have electronic machines... fulfillment of ADA requirements.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 11:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
They need an app to be able to securely vote from your phone.

Then it's game over.
In more ways than one.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2018, 11:03 PM
 
Skipping ahead (haven't posted about indictments in detail) its looking more likely that Rick Gates is/going to flip. That gives Mueller some enormous leverage on Manafort, I imagine. This leads me to two questions:

1. Is Manafort the type of person to flip?
2. Does he have anything to offer Mueller? (i.e., did he see criminal things while running the Trump campaign)
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2018, 02:11 PM
 
Manafort won’t flip if he can get a pardon.

I’d say that’s a given unless there are 5th Amendment problems Trump opens himself up to by pardoning.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2018, 02:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Manafort won’t flip if he can get a pardon.

I’d say that’s a given unless there are 5th Amendment problems Trump opens himself up to by pardoning.
What an interesting thought. Does a pardon mean the person was guilty of the charges? If they weren't guilty, why did they need pardoning?

"Manafort charged with helping Trump break the law."
"Trump pardons Manafort for helping him break the law."

I have no idea what would happen next.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2018, 03:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Does a pardon mean the person was guilty of the charges?
FWIU, yes.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2018, 05:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
What an interesting thought. Does a pardon mean the person was guilty of the charges? If they weren't guilty, why did they need pardoning?
Nope, they don't need to have been found guilty in a court of law to receive a pardon. The most famous example is Nixon by President Ford: Nixon hadn't been found guilty of anything in a court of law, but the pardon precluded the possibility of even initiating legal proceedings. Ford's official reason was that trying a former president for what he did in office would tear the country apart. I'll leave it to you whether you find that convincing or sufficient.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
"Manafort charged with helping Trump break the law."
"Trump pardons Manafort for helping him break the law."

I have no idea what would happen next.
I would like to say that Trump would get impeached by Congress, but honestly, I don't think Congress has the spine or the conviction to do anything about it. A lot of constituents believe that the charges against Manafort, Flynn et al are all bogus, the Deep State™ trying to kill the Trump Presidency. Scandal!
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2018, 10:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Does a pardon mean the person was guilty of the charges?
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Nope, they don't need to have been found guilty in a court of law to receive a pardon.
Not what I meant. Does a pardon itself indicate the person was guilty? For example, it might go: "I, _____, POTUS hereby pardon Larry Quickbags for the crime of robbing Main Street Bank."

Or is it more like "I, _____, POTUS hereby pardon my good friend Larry for any crimes or sins he may or may not have committed in the past. This pardon should not be construed to admit guilt regarding any specific crime that Larry is alleged to have committed."

ie - regardless of wording, is the existence of a pardon a declaration of guilt, much the same as a court finding?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2018, 10:56 PM
 
Allow me to answer this in a comedic way
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jo...rticle/2646008
Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio seemed to learn Friday during a live TV interview that accepting President Trump's pardon for a conviction over a violated court order also meant admitting wrongdoing.

“But you accepted the pardon,” MSNBC host Ari Melber said Friday when Arpaio refused to acknowledge he was guilty of criminal contempt of court. "You know under the law that is an admission of guilt.”

Melber then cited Burdick v. United States as legal precedent for how a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it.”
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2018, 11:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Not what I meant. Does a pardon itself indicate the person was guilty?
As a matter of public perception, maybe. A pardon (as opposed to granting clemency) wipes the criminal record of a person clean. Legally, as far as I understand that person has no criminal record (at least from the crime that person was pardoned for) even if that person has been found guilty by a court of law. Arpaio is an innocent man in the eyes of the law. So is OJ Simpson (when it comes to the murder of his wife), but in the court of public perception both men would probably be found guilty. Granting someone a pardon is a sign by the president that the court's decision, if there was one, was unjust or false.

That is because the President could also grant clemency instead and alter the sentence (e. g. no jail time or time served). In that case, the person still has a criminal record. President Trump could have granted clemency to Arpaio instead, let him serve no jail time, because of, say, his age and his “service” to the country. It would have been a sign that Arpaio's behavior was wrong (in the eyes of the President), but instead President Trump pardoned him. President Obama granted clemency to Chelsea Manning and reduced her sentence to time served. In contrast, he decided to pardon former General Cartwright for leaking classified information. (Maybe Manning should have risen in the ranks a little before leaking )

What the public thinks is an entirely different matter. I don't think many people will now consider Arpaio squeaky clean any more that they think OJ Simpson is innocent of murdering his wife. How you feel about Manning or Cartwright probably depends on what you think of their actions and their service to the country. (You can guess my opinions on both …)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2018, 11:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Allow me to answer this in a comedic way
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jo...rticle/2646008
Hmmm, interesting.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2018, 09:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
So, no charges, no smoking guns.
Quick! Chongo! The goalposts! Move them!!

The full list of known indictments and plea deals in Mueller’s probe
1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, pleaded guilty in October to making false statements to the FBI.

2) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December to making false statements to the FBI.

3) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted in October on charges of conspiracy, money laundering, false statements, and failure to disclose foreign assets — all related to his work for Ukrainian politicians before he joined the Trump campaign. He’s pleaded not guilty on all counts.

4) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was similarly indicted on conspiracy, money laundering, and false statements charges. He’s pleaded not guilty on all counts, for now.

5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.

21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller.

22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2018, 05:46 PM
 
Movie conspiracy theory: Manafort won't/can't flip because he or his family might get wacked.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2018, 09:54 PM
 
Catching up again...
https://twitter.com/MarshallCohen/st...10440072466433

New filing in GATES case says he lied to Mueller about a March 2013 meeting where Ukraine was discussed. Who was there? MANAFORT and REP. ROHRABACHER, and a DC lobbyist, according to FARA filings. Rohrabacher is one of the most pro-Russia lawmakers in DC.
Rohrbacher's name finally pops up again.


https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/...25406998966279
The Dem House Intel memo reveals that, by mid-Sept 2016, the FBI had open "sub-inquiries" into *multiple* individuals linked to the Trump campaign -- not just Carter Page.

Their names are redacted
https://twitter.com/nedprice/status/967533277987983361
An apparent mistake in the declassification process, footnote 7 seems to reveal what's redacted: FIVE campaign officials were under investigation as of Sept. '16, including the future National Security Advisor, MICHAEL FLYNN.
Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Papodapolous

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/st...29271047741440
Striking detail in Schiff rebuttal.

Steele's sources reported that a "senior Kremlin official" allegedly told Page that "Kremlin possessed compromising info on Clinton" and noted "possibility of it being released" to Trump campaign.

FBI saw this as "consistent" w/other info.


Exploring this nugget further: https://www.justsecurity.org/53241/r...rump-campaign/
As Rep. Adam Schiff recently told Chris Hayes, “our memo discloses for the first time that the Russians previewed to Papadopoulos that they could help with disseminating these stolen emails.” Rep. Schiff added, “When Donald Trump openly called on the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails, they’d be richly rewarded if they released these to the press, his campaign had already been put on notice that the Russians were prepared to do just that and disseminate these stolen emails.”
Now, who was Papodopolous' point of contact? Professor Misfud.
According to court documents, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russians had thousands of emails from Democrats in April 2016, two months before the Democrats themselves were aware that their computer system had been hacked. Mifsud told Papadopoulos he’d learned of the emails during a trip to Russia, but who told him is unknown.
Where is Misfud these days?
His biography disappeared from one university where he taught and he quit his job at another university. His email and cell phones went dead. And politicians, colleagues, and journalists can't find him.

Neither can Anna, his 31-year-old Ukrainian fiancé, who says he is the father of her newborn child. And her story, snatched from the pages of a John le Carré novel, offers a glimpse at the human collateral damage of an intelligence operation in which the mysterious Mifsud was allegedly a central figure.

Anna, whom BuzzFeed News has agreed to identify only by her first name because she doesn’t want the attention, says she was seven months pregnant and engaged to Mifsud when he became the focus of world media attention as the professor who told Papadopoulos that Russia had “dirt” on Clinton.

Shortly thereafter, he dropped from sight. He also cut off all contact with Anna, including phone calls and WhatsApp messages. That silence has held, even six weeks after the daughter Anna says he fathered was born.
Considering he's based in London and tying in the premise of this thread it might not be unreasonable to think he's decomposing in a locked duffel bag somewhere in the UK. i.e., this guy knew too much for Putin not to whack.

Alternatively this guy is working really hard to avoid child support payments.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonard...lw#.pyrQXJyYkX
Now, however, feeling deceived, she’s changed her mind. The result is new information about Mifsud’s activities, including his claim of having dined with Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister.

“He said, ‘I have dinner with Lavrov tonight. Lavrov is my friend. Lavrov this, Lavrov that,’” Anna said. “He even show me picture with Lavrov.”

Russia’s Foreign Ministry didn’t respond to a request for comment.

In a series of WhatsApp messages sent in May 2017, Mifsud also told Anna he was in Saudi Arabia at the same time as President Donald Trump’s visit, and in Sicily, Italy, for the G7 Summit.
Coincidentally, Lavrov is one of the guys Trump has met since in office.

Returning to previous article...
A legally important question is what the Trump campaign did after the Russians previewed that they could help disseminate the stolen emails. If Trump campaign officials consulted with the Russians on their plans to disseminate the emails, it could involve direct violations of campaign finance laws (see the statement below from leading election law expert Paul Seamus Ryan). If Trump campaign officials gave tacit assent or approval or support, it could directly implicate them in the “conspiracy to defraud the United States” by evading the Federal Election Commission—the very conspiracy for which Mueller has already indicted thirteen Russian nationals (see the statement below by former White House official and also top election law expert Bob Bauer). If Papadopoulos intentionally encouraged the Russians and if he was instructed to do so by other campaign officials, they could be liable as accomplices (see statements below from law professors and former federal prosecutors Barbara McQuade and Alex Whiting). The Trump campaign as an organization could also be criminally liable (see statement below from McQuade). Finally, if members of the Trump campaign tried to conceal the facts of a crime (potentially including either the original DNC hack or the dissemination of the stolen emails) they could be guilty of “misprision of a felony” (see statements below by former federal prosecutors including Renato Mariotti).
Misprision of a felony may be an especially fruitful avenue in this case if the Russians informed the campaign about their plans to disseminate the stolen emails. We know that Papadopoulos himself lied to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians, and that other former campaign officials misled federal authorities about the campaign’s contacts with the Russians. These could add up to a strong case of misprision in having not only failed to notify authorities but more importantly in also having actively concealed important information about the Russians’ involvement in the DNC hack and dissemination of those stolen emails.”
Big questions. Is it likely Pap or Page wouldn't have told the campaign about this?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2018, 10:07 PM
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8ea11e3facb5
A self-described sex expert whose videos highlighted the ties between one of Russia’s richest men and the Kremlin has been jailed in Thailand and is calling for U.S. help, claiming she has information about links between Russia and President Trump.
One would right to be skeptical that this isn't a hail mary to get out of Thai custody. Still, she has some receipts in the form of Instagram pics of her with the Russian men of influence.

Anastasia Vashukevich, an escort service worker from Belarus who catapulted to a certain measure of fame after filming a yacht trip with Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska and Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Prikhodko, was detained in Thailand over the weekend in a police raid on her “sex training” seminar. While still in custody Tuesday, she published Instagram videos asking U.S. journalists and intelligence agencies to help her.
Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny made Vashukevich famous last month after he broadcast old footage from her Instagram account showing an August 2016 yacht trip with Deripaska and Prikhodko. Navalny used the footage to allege that Deripaska, a metals magnate, had bribed Prikhodko, one of Russia’s most influential government officials, with the luxury getaway accompanied by women from an escort service.

Navalny also speculated that Deripaska and Prikhodko may have served as a link between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign in 2016, although Vashukevich’s videos offered no proof. According to emails described to The Washington Post last year, Manafort — who once worked for Deripaska — directed an associate to offer Deripaska “private briefings” about Trump’s presidential campaign. A Deripaska spokeswoman said he was never offered such briefings.
---

The Stone-Wikileaks connection is getting weirder
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ileaks/554432/
On March 17, 2017, WikiLeaks tweeted that it had never communicated with Roger Stone, a longtime confidante and informal adviser to President Donald Trump. In his interview with the House Intelligence Committee last September, Stone, who testified under oath, told lawmakers that he had communicated with WikiLeaks via an “intermediary,” whom he identified only as a “journalist.” He declined to reveal that person’s identity to the committee, he told reporters later.

Private Twitter messages obtained by The Atlantic show that Stone and WikiLeaks, a radical-transparency group, communicated directly on October 13, 2016—and that WikiLeaks sought to keep its channel to Stone open after Trump won the election.
Stone insisted that the messages vindicated his account. “They prove conclusively that I had no advance knowledge of content or source of WikiLeaks publications,” he said. “I merely had confirmed Assange’s public claim that he had information on Hillary Clinton and he would publish it.” He also narrowed the scope of his earlier denials, saying that he’d only denied having communicated directly with Assange, not with Wikileaks.
Looks like he lied...

It is unclear whether Stone and WikiLeaks kept in touch, using Twitter or another platform, after the election. WikiLeaks continued to insist through at least last March that neither the organization nor Assange had ever communicated with Stone directly. Stone later identified radio host Randy Credico as the intermediary, but Credico denied that in an interview with The Daily Beast earlier this month. “There was no backchannel to Roger Stone, and I think that his testimony was a lot of bravado,” Credico said. “Roger’s a showman.”

The substance of the messages does seem to corroborate, however, Stone and WikiLeaks’ denials prior to October 13 that they had coordinated in any significant way. WikiLeaks indicated that Stone’s claims of association—even if through a backchannel, as Stone alleged—were false. But the screenshots do not show whether Stone and WikiLeaks communicated prior to October 13 or after November 9, 2016.
...but also told the truth.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2018, 10:23 PM
 
The escort will “disappear” by Monday.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2018, 10:30 PM
 
Leaks regarding Mueller's digging...
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/statu...60796963213312
BREAKING: Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has been asking some witnesses about Donald Trump’s business activities in Russia prior to the 2016 campaign as he considered a run for president, sources say
Money Laundering

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...mpression=true
Special counsel Robert Mueller's team is asking witnesses pointed questions about whether Donald Trump was aware that Democratic emails had been stolen before that was publicly known, and whether he was involved in their strategic release, according to multiple people familiar with the probe.
(Goes back to Pap questions)


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.95e15fe5b9c6
In recent months, Mueller’s team has questioned witnesses in detail about Trump’s private comments and state of mind in late July and early August of last year, around the time he issued a series of tweets belittling his “beleaguered” attorney general, these people said. The thrust of the questions was to determine whether the president’s goal was to oust Sessions in order to pick a replacement who would exercise control over the investigation into possible coordination between Russia and Trump associates during the 2016 election, these people said.
Obstruction


https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/969016251644284928
Scoop: Mueller’s team is asking about comments made by Hope Hicks about Russian contacts to the NYT, a former Trump campaign official who has spoken to Special Counsel’s office tells CNN.
Mueller's team asking about this comment Hicks made to NYT two days after 2016 election: "We are not aware of any campaign representatives that were in touch with any foreign entities before yesterday, when Mr. Trump spoke with many world leaders,”
Different obstruction

---

Speaking of obstruction: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/u...nes-leaks.html
The Senate Intelligence Committee has concluded that Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee were behind the leak of private text messages between the Senate panel’s top Democrat and a Russian-connected lawyer, according to two congressional officials briefed on the matter.

Senator Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, the committee’s Republican chairman, and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat, were so perturbed by the leak that they demanded a rare meeting with Speaker Paul D. Ryan last month to inform him of their findings. They used the meeting with Mr. Ryan to raise broader concerns about the direction of the House Intelligence Committee under its chairman, Representative Devin Nunes of California, the officials said.
The messages between Mr. Warner and Adam Waldman, a Washington lawyer, show that the senator tried for weeks to arrange a meeting with Christopher Steele, the former British spy who assembled a dossier of salacious claims about connections between Mr. Trump, his associates and Russia. The Senate committee has had difficulty making contact with Mr. Steele, whom it views as a key witness. And Mr. Waldman, who knew Mr. Steele, presented himself as a willing partner.

The texts were leaked just days after the same House Republicans had taken the extraordinary step of publicly releasing, over the objections of the F.B.I., a widely disputed memorandum based on sensitive government secrets. Taken together, the actions suggested a pattern of partisanship and unilateral action by the once-bipartisan House panel.
These were likely the texts that Assange tried shopping to Hannity here. That means there's a chance someone in HPSCI leaked the material to wikileaks to then shop it to favorable sources. Wikileaks would be a good cut-out to avoid a direct trail, except one problem:

The documents published by Fox News appear to back up the senators’ accusation. Though they were marked “CONFIDENTIAL: Produced to USSSCI on a Confidential Basis,” suggesting that they had come from the Senate panel, known as the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the person familiar with the congressional requests said that the stamp was misleading and that other markings gave away their actual origin.

Specifically, the copy of the messages shared with the Senate had page numbers, and the one submitted to the House — while preserving the reference to the Senate committee — did not.
A smoking gun, if you will. Now who requested that info in the first place?
Copies of the messages were originally submitted by Mr. Waldman to the Senate committee. In January, one of Mr. Nunes’s staff members requested that copies be shared with the House committee as well, according to a person familiar with the request who was not authorized to talk about it publicly. Days later, the messages were published by Fox News, the person said. Fox’s report said that it had obtained the documents from a Republican source it did not name.
Mr. Obstruction of Justice's staff. What a coincidence! Even without this source, simple logic would point to Nunes as none of HPSCIs GOP members seem this brazen or stupid. What would really seal this, however, is finding some kind of connection between Nunes staff and wikileaks. Good luck with that.

In a statement, a spokesman for Mr. Nunes, Jack Langer, did not dispute that the committee had leaked the messages, but called the premise of this article “absurd.”
Non-denial denial

In his meeting with the senators, Mr. Ryan told them that he did not run the committee himself, the officials briefed on the encounter said.
Enabling...

FWIW Burr seems to deny most of the story
BURR knocking this down. Is this story accurate? "No." Did Senate Intel determine that GOP from House Intel leaked the texts? "No." Did Burr/Warner go to Ryan to raise concerns about the leak? "No." Did they raise concerns about Nunes? "No." (via @mkraju)
https://twitter.com/MarshallCohen/st...67941450674177

---

If all the media reporting is accurate so far, I fully expect Ryan to be shown to have helped obstruct. I'd say 'go down for' but I'm not expecting accountability. Context: This was the guy who wanted to keep suspicions of Russia funding Rohrbacher and Trump 'in the family'. He backed Nunes threat to subpeona the DOJ.

Nunes has shown that he's using the committee for partisan gain and now may have leaked classified info provided by their opposites in the Senate in an attempt to smear the ranking member. That alone should get him booted, let alone all the skulking about he's done the past year. Ryan is complicit.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2018, 10:35 PM
 
Thus ends this session with me:


(In all honesty, I've noticed that the longer this goes, the more willing I am to believe the worst of everyone involved. It goes beyond reporting to having this kind of ordeal warp how you perceive the world. It's tough trying to keep my feet on the ground.)

....which reminds me, here's a good article for perspective.
Confessions of a Russiagate Skeptic
No, I’m not denying the voluminous evidence that Russia, at Kremlin strongman Vladimir Putin’s personal direction, sought to meddle in the 2016 election, and that Donald Trump was clearly his man. The indictment on Friday of 13 Russians—and the incredible forensic detail in the 37-page complaint filed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team—ought to have convinced any reasonable person that the Russia investigation is definitely a somethingburger. But what kind of somethingburger is it?
I keep coming back to the slapdash nature of Trump’s 2016 operation, and the chaos and dysfunction that everyone who covered that campaign saw play out each day. Like the Trump White House, the Trump campaign was a viper’s nest of incompetence and intrigue, with aides leaking viciously against one another almost daily. So much damaging information poured out of Trump Tower that it’s hard to believe a conspiracy to collude with Moscow to win the election never went public. If there was such a conspiracy, it must have been a very closely guarded secret.

Then there’s the Trump factor to consider. Here’s a man who seems to share every thought that enters his head, almost as soon as he enters it. He loves nothing more than to brag about himself, and he’s proven remarkably indiscreet in the phone calls he makes with “friends” during his Executive Time—friends who promptly share the contents of those conversations with D.C. reporters. If Trump had cooked up a scheme to provide some favor to Putin in exchange for his election, wouldn’t he be tempted to boast about it to someone?

And there are aspects of the Russia scandal, too, that don’t quite add up for me. Take Flynn’s plea bargain. As Preet Bharara, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, noted after the deal became public, prosecutors usually prefer to charge participants in a conspiracy with charges related to the underlying crime. But Flynn pleaded guilty only to lying to the FBI, which Bharara surmised that might mean Mueller didn’t have much on him. It certainly seems unlikely that any prosecutor would charge Flynn for violating the 219-year-old Logan Act, a constitutionally questionable law that has never been tested in court, for his chats with the Russian ambassador. It’s not even clear if the (stupid) idea of using secure Russian communications gear, as Flynn and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly considered doing, would have been a crime.

Then there is Papadopoulos, the hapless campaign volunteer who drunkenly blabbed to the Australian ambassador to London that the Russians were sitting on loads of hacked emails. He, likewise, confessed only to lying to the FBI. Papadopoulos desperately tried to arrange meetings between Trump or top Trump officials and Russians, which apparently never happened. Papadopoulos has been cooperating with Mueller for months, but how much does he really have to offer? He seems like an attention-seeking wannabe—the kind who puts “Model U.N. participant” on his resume.

Speaking of attention-seeking wannabes, Carter Page was another volunteer campaign adviser who was enthusiastic about collaborating with Russia. His writings and comments suggest he has been a Putin apologist for years. But anyone who has seen Page’s TV interviews or read through his congressional testimony can tell that there’s something not quite right about him. He’s apparently broke, doesn’t have a lawyer, and has issued lengthy, bizarre statements comparing himself to Martin Luther King, Jr. Back in 2013, when a Russian agent tried to recruit Page, he described him as too much of an “idiot” to bother with. This is the mastermind of the Russia scandal?

As for Manafort and Gates, the charges against them are serious and detailed. They stand accused of failing to register as foreign agents for their overseas work, as well as various offenses related to money laundering. But Mueller has yet to charge them with any crimes related to their work on the Trump campaign. Gates is reportedly working out a cooperation deal with Mueller’s team—perhaps he has stories to tell. And we can’t rule out the idea that Mueller is prepared to file superseding charges against either or both of the two men. But so far, their alleged crimes seem unrelated to 2016.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2018, 12:04 AM
 
Christ, two more stories dropped tonight.

Depth Of Russian Politician's Cultivation Of NRA Ties Revealed
I didn't see anything damning or even really revealing in this



I don't have faith in the dailymail (jesus that clickbait title) but one part has gotten some attention
EXCLUSIVE: Hope Hicks' $10 million payday! The departing coms director is flooded with offers as publishers scramble for a book deal to spill the secrets of Trump's inner sanctum and her affair with wife abuser Rob Porter
According to a White House insider, Hicks has been secretly keeping what was described as a 'detailed diary of her White House work, and her interactions with the president.'
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2018, 11:18 AM
 
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2018, 10:08 PM
 
One component of the investigation already blew up in four days. I swear we've had more leaks about the investigation in the past four weeks than the entire year before. I surmise this is because Mueller is starting to pull in a lot of different components.

It started with: http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...visor-on-trump
The New York Times reported Saturday that Mueller's team is looking into a Lebanese-American businessman and adviser to the Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan, the crown prince of the UAE.

That businessman, George Nader, visited the White House frequently last year, according to the Times. That investigators are examining Nader's role in the White House's policymaking and asking about efforts by the Emiratis to influence the Trump administration suggests that Mueller's probe has broadened beyond Russia's election meddling.

According to the Times, investigators have been asking witnesses about possible attempts by the Emiratis to buy influence in the White House by supporting President Trump's 2016 campaign.
The follow-up: https://t.co/VCqJBVkwpa
An adviser to the United Arab Emirates with ties to current and former aides to President Trump is cooperating with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and gave testimony last week to a grand jury, according to two people familiar with the matter
Mr. Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman who advises Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, the effective ruler of the Emirates, also attended a January 2017 meeting in the Seychelles that Mr. Mueller’s investigators have examined. The meeting, convened by the crown prince, brought together a Russian investor close to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia with Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater and an informal adviser to Mr. Trump’s team during the presidential transition, according to three people familiar with the meeting.
There's that loose thread I've been curious over.

Mr. Nader was first served with search warrants and a grand jury subpoena on Jan. 17, shortly after landing at Washington Dulles International Airport, according to two people familiar with the episode. He had intended to travel on to Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s Florida estate, to celebrate the president’s first year in office, but the F.B.I. had other plans, questioning him for more than two hours and seizing his electronics.
Stone cold.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2018, 07:58 PM
 
On the heels of yesterdays news
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.aca3a828e468
In January, 2016, Erik Prince, the founder of the private military company Blackwater, met with a Russian official close to President Vladi­mir Putin, and later described the meeting to congressional investigators as a chance encounter that was not a planned discussion of U.S.-Russia relations.

A witness cooperating with Mueller has told investigators the meeting was set up in advance so that a representative of the Trump transition could meet with an emissary from Moscow to discuss future relations between the two countries, according to the people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.
Prince has known Nader for years, and once hired him to try to generate business from the Iraqi government in the years after the U.S. invasion of that country. That effort was not successful, according to Prince’s statements in a subsequent deposition.

Nader, according to current and former officials, was known to Trump transition and administration officials as someone with political connections in the Middle East who could help navigate the tricky diplomacy of the region.

Nader had also attended a December 2016 meeting in New York between senior Trump advisers with the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Investigators now suspect the Seychelles meeting may have been one of the first efforts to establish such a line of communications between the two governments, these people said. Nader’s account is considered key evidence — but not the only evidence — about what transpired in the Seychelles, according to people familiar with the matter.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2018, 12:32 PM
 
( Last edited by Thorzdad; Mar 8, 2018 at 02:18 PM. )
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2018, 07:03 PM
 
So I wasn't going to note one of the more outlandish parts of this profile, but the WSJ has come out with some related info, so...

One subject that Steele is believed to have discussed with Mueller’s investigators is a memo that he wrote in late November, 2016, after his contract with Fusion had ended. This memo, which did not surface publicly with the others, is shorter than the rest, and is based on one source, described as “a senior Russian official.” The official said that he was merely relaying talk circulating in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but what he’d heard was astonishing: people were saying that the Kremlin had intervened to block Trump’s initial choice for Secretary of State, Mitt Romney. (During Romney’s run for the White House in 2012, he was notably hawkish on Russia, calling it the single greatest threat to the U.S.) The memo said that the Kremlin, through unspecified channels, had asked Trump to appoint someone who would be prepared to lift Ukraine-related sanctions, and who would coöperate on security issues of interest to Russia, such as the conflict in Syria. If what the source heard was true, then a foreign power was exercising pivotal influence over U.S. foreign policy—and an incoming President.
For context, one of the purported meetings between Kush & Kislyak was on December 1st. Tillerson gained traction around the 5th and Romney dropped out by the 12th.

WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian...ate-1520505000
Weeks after Donald Trump was elected president, Russia-backed online “trolls” flooded social media to try to block Mitt Romney from securing a top job in the incoming administration, a Wall Street Journal analysis shows.
Several of the most prominent Russian-linked Twitter accounts urged people to sign a petition on the website change.org. “Romney is everything we voted against when we voted Trump to #DrainTheSwamp! Sign the petition & RT #NeverRomney,” wrote TEN_GOP, an account masquerading as the Tennessee GOP, to more than 50,000 followers on Nov. 30, 2016.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2018, 07:10 PM
 
That server could be the biggest red herring the left has focused on, but somehow it keeps creeping up. Mostly because it either hasn't been explained or the explanation isn't comprehensible for most people.

I've read an ars article on it twice, can't remember anything other than they said there wasn't much info to be gleaned from the coincidence.


Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
That's the link that kicked off the first slap-fight in this thread a year ago tomorrow.

Regarding Alfa Bank, that's another detail I didn't get around to posting.
https://www.gq.com/story/how-mueller...steele-dossier
As it so happens, Van Der Zwaan, the lawyer indicted Tuesday, is the son-in-law of Russian oligarch German Khan. Khan is a director and co-owner of Alfa Bank and one of three key leaders of its parent company, the sprawling conglomerate Alfa Group.

Those of you following along at home will remember Russia’s Alfa Bank popped up prominently in the Steele Dossier—and figured in news reports that the FBI was investigating unexplained connections between the Trump Organization and computer servers owned by the bank.

The exact nature of the relationship—if there is one—between Alfa Bank and Trump World, has been unclear. But with Van Der Zwaan, who pleaded guilty on Tuesday, Mueller may have quietly given us a new connection worth noting.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2018, 12:39 AM
 
So, uh, somewhat unrelated
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...charge/555233/
A political operative who frequented the White House in the early days of President Trump’s administration, George Nader, was indicted in 1985 on charges of importing to the United States obscene material, including photos of nude boys “engaged in a variety of sexual acts,” according to publicly available court records. Nader pleaded not guilty, and the charges against him were ultimately dismissed several months after evidence seized from Nader’s home was thrown out on procedural grounds.
Also, the Seychelles leaks have gotten more explicit (I suspect this may have leaked to get the latest Nader story out of the cycle). The latest:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-d...ler-1520563593
Mr. Mueller’s investigators have heard testimony from a witness that the donor, Erik Prince, wasn’t introduced to the Russian by intermediaries from the United Arab Emirates, as he had told the House panel, the people said.

Mr. Prince, founder of the Blackwater security firm, told the House Intelligence Committee in November that he had traveled to the Seychelles to meet with Mohammed bin Zayed, crown prince of the United Arab Emirates, and his associates to discuss “potential business in the future,” according to a public transcript released by the panel, which is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Mr. Nader told Mr. Mueller’s investigators that he attended Mr. Prince’s meeting with the Emirati delegation and that the Emiratis didn’t make the introduction between Mr. Prince and Mr. Dmitriev, the people said.
So Prince lied. Somehow I think the House Committee won't recall him.

Mr. Prince had crossed paths with Mr. Nader years earlier, when he hired Mr. Nader as a business development consultant in Iraq, according to a 2010 deposition by Mr. Prince as part of a lawsuit against his former company, Blackwater.
Jesus Christ, they're connected from prior to the meeting. What a coincidence.


Elliott Broidy, a top Republican fundraiser close to the president, sent Mr. Nader a memo last fall summarizing an October meeting he had with the president and other top advisers. The memo was included in a cache of emails from Mr. Broidy’s and his wife’s email accounts provided to the Journal.

In the memo, Mr. Broidy—who serves as national deputy finance chairman at the Republican National Committee—said he told the president that he had met with top Emirati officials, including Mr. Zayed, on behalf of his defense company. The memo also said Mr. Broidy had urged Mr. Trump to support a plan “being constructed” by Mr. Zayed to create a regional counterterrorism task force.

Mr. Broidy described Mr. Trump’s response as “extremely enthusiastic,” and said he urged the president to have a “quiet meeting” with Mr. Zayed in New York or New Jersey.

“President Trump agreed that a meeting with MBZ was a good idea,” Mr. Broidy wrote in the memo.
Here's the timeline I'm getting:

2010: Eric Prince and George Nader do business in Iraq.
2016: Elliott Broidy meets with Emirati officials, including Sheikh Zayed, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi.
October 2016: Broidy passes Nader a memo saying he urged Trump to meet Zayed.
December 2016: Sheikh Zayed arrives in NYC without giving diplomatic notice. This catches the Obama Administration's attention.
December 2016: Zayed, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, allegedly meets with Flynn, Kushner & Bannon (The meeting Broidy urged?). Nader doesn't attend but does interact with them as they leave.
January 2017: Prince flies to Seychelles on short notice at the Crown Prince's behest. At this meeting is George Nader and Russian Kirill Dmitriev, who has ties to Putin.
December 2017: Eric Prince testifies before the HPSCI that meeting Kirill Dmitriev was happenstance. I believe he also fails to mention Nader's attendance.

That... is not nothing.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:48 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,