Mueller Indictment

[homersapien 11,452]

7 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

.....Okay lets look at this: 2014-2015-2016 is 36 months. 36X1.25M=$45M This is the most grossOVER ESTIMATION I COULD DREAM UP...HRC out spent Trump by $500MN Does any rational person think they made a dent into her camapaign?  If it was just 18 months of the actual campaign season, it falls to $22.5MN versus $500MN. And still the documentation says that no American was aware of it.

What's your point?

What does Clinton campaign spending have to do with Mueller's indictments?

[TexasTiger 13,026]

57 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Russians-Indicted-US-Election-Meddling-Mueller-474309733.html

We have known this for months. Really nothing new here. Apparently, 13 Russians may or may not have done something that may have lead to Trump gaining a very few votes. The Russians are not going to honor extradition and are openly predicting more indictments that they consider to be just meaningless blabber. 

HRC still outspent Trump by $500MN. If there was any collusion, Mueller's Team is not showing it in any way and in reality, has said out loud that American involvement in this was low-level and unintentional. Just like members of the DNC have communicated since the beginning. Waters, Feinstein, Jones, et al. have said since early on that this was going nowhere. 

For all you know nothings out there with heads buried in the sand, I am just pointing out what was in the press. Anyone that was paying attention could read the same thing. If you want Trump gone, impeach him for something that is actually provable and actionable. Butthurt, while provable, is not actionable.  HRC ran the worst campaign in history, losing to the worst opponent in history.  She blew $1.2BN and lost. Justice Democrats and TYT are raising a stink with the DNC about how almost half of the $1.2BN went to 5-6 Campaign Advisors. In the details...Trump actually spent about $700MN getting elected. HRC actually only used about $600MN on actual election spending. This is where she lost. 

Thanks, Don Jr. 

[DKW 86 7,441]

I'll make it so simple even you get it.

1) The indictments if anything say specifically that no American citizen was cognitively aware of Russian influence. (No collusion.)

2) Even if the worse case scenarios were looked at, the "damage" to HRC was minimal. 

3) The indictments have already been blown off by the Russians as blabber. These are indictments that will never see a courtroom. 

4) You can indict a ham sandwich....

5) Every country since probably 1800 INCLUDING THE US has been involved with other countries elections. The Obama Administration used about $3MN in total to oust Netanyahu in 2015.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/07/12/ngo-connected-to-obamas-2008-campaign-used-u-s-tax-dollars-trying-to-oust-netanyahu/?utm_term=.2b3ea5c0d2e5

Quote

Aside from its instigation of coups and alliances with right-wing juntas, Washington sought to more subtly influence elections in all corners of the world. And so did Moscow. Political scientist Dov Levin calculates that the “two powers intervened in 117 elections around the world from 1946 to 2000 — an average of once in every nine competitive elections.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-history-of-the-u-s-interfering-with-elections-elsewhere/?utm_term=.e0f658272a89

[DKW 86 7,441]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Thanks, Don Jr. 

 

44 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are such a Trumpster.  

 

[homersapien 11,452]

40 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

 

 

Wrong forum.

[homersapien 11,452]

9 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I'll make it so simple even you get it.

1) The indictments if anything say specifically that no American citizen was cognitively aware of Russian influence. (No collusion.)

2) Even if the worse case scenarios were looked at, the "damage" to HRC was minimal. 

3) The indictments have already been blown off by the Russians as blabber. These are indictments that will never see a courtroom. 

4) You can indict a ham sandwich....

5) Every country since probably 1800 INCLUDING THE US has been involved with other countries elections. The Obama Administration used about $3MN in total to oust Netanyahu in 2015.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/07/12/ngo-connected-to-obamas-2008-campaign-used-u-s-tax-dollars-trying-to-oust-netanyahu/?utm_term=.2b3ea5c0d2e5

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-history-of-the-u-s-interfering-with-elections-elsewhere/?utm_term=.e0f658272a89

Likewise, I will keep it simple.

1)  OK fine, but irrelevant.  No one has claimed otherwise.

2) No way to determine that, so it's complete speculation.  But the election was close enough to clearly make it a possibility.  Regardless, this is also totally irrelevant to the issuing of these indictments, which is the topic at hand.

3) True.  But also substantively irrelevant to the topic.

4) Seriously?  Are you suggesting these indictments have no merit?  If so, why?

5) What is your point?  Are you suggesting that because the US's history of influencing foreign (hell, we have literally overthrown legally elected governments), we should ignore it when when it's done to us?   Is that justification for ignoring Russian efforts to influence our elections, past and future?

You sound like one of the Russian-hired bloggers.

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

You say "alleges", I say "indicates".  

No one has said these indictments are the same as convictions.  But they are very specific with plenty of supporting evidence. This is especially true when foreigners - especially Russians - are the object and there is little chance of a trial.  Typically, the overriding point in such a case is to make a convincing public (political) statement about what happened.

While such indictments aren't convictions, no reasonable person would doubt these crimes occured. 

Indictments do not indicate that a crime has occured. PERIOD. That is determined in the judicial process. It doesnt matter what people believe - it matters what’s determined in the court of law.

Do i think they done it? Yes. Does that matter? No.

Also, funny that you nor your counterparts could have ever predicted a Russian indictment, but when it occures it’s all “see, told ya.” 

Meanwhile still no Trump collusion. That must be aggravating. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You should save all your posts for the smack talk forum.

Well hey, if I thought indictments meant a crime occurred, and someone corrected me... I'd feel smack talked too.

[homersapien 11,452]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Indictments do not indicate that a crime has occured. PERIOD. That is determined in the judicial process. It doesnt matter what people believe - it matters what’s determined in the court of law.

Do i think they done it? Yes. Does that matter? No.

Also, funny that you nor your counterparts could have ever predicted a Russian indictment, but when it occures it’s all “see, told ya.” 

Meanwhile still no Trump collusion. That must be aggravating. 

Indictments most certainly do claim a crime was committed, otherwise they wouldn't have been issued in the first place.  The case for this crime - as laid out in the indictment - is sufficient to say that a crime was indicated (or suggested, or claimed). 

Determination that a crime has been commited doesn't require a conviction by the presumed perpetuator.  And you are right that it's possible a jury might dismiss a charge based on the fact that they didn't believe the "crime" as describe in the indictment was actually crime.

It appears we agree on the legal facts.  I acknowledge that indication of a crime - as an integral part of any given indictment - is not legal proof that a crime was committed.  That requires the final phase of the process, a trial. 

Your issue with my specific use of the word "indicated" in the context of describing this indictment relies on ascribing a legal significance to the word which was not intended nor even necessary.  It's specious. 

So, we can just agree to disagree.  This just isn't worth anymore of my time.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Indictments most certainly do claim a crime was committed, otherwise they wouldn't have been issued in the first place.  The case for this crime - as laid out in the indictment - is sufficient to say that a crime was indicated (or suggested, or claimed). 

Determination that a crime has been commited doesn't require a conviction by the presumed perpetuator.  And you are right that it's possible a jury might dismiss a charge based on the fact that they didn't believe the "crime" as describe in the indictment was actually crime.

It appears we agree on the legal facts.  I acknowledge that indication of a crime - as an integral part of any given indictment - is not legal proof that a crime was committed.  That requires the final phase of the process, a trial. 

Your issue with my specific use of the word "indicated" in the context of describing this indictment relies on ascribing a legal significance to the word which was not intended nor even necessary.  It's specious. 

So, we can just agree to disagree.  This just isn't worth anymore of my time.

 

Moving on

[AUFAN78 3,926]

20 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

And Mueller never shows a card he doesn’t need to without a purpose.

Perhaps his purpose was to downplay losing Flynn?

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/02/mueller_is_losing_flynn_so_he_indicts_russians.html

[AUFAN78 3,926]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

Does this look like a "nothing burger" to you

Well............

http://hopelesslypartisan.com/the-paragraphs-of-the-day-240/

[AUDub 11,184]

22 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Well............

http://hopelesslypartisan.com/the-paragraphs-of-the-day-240/

Man you've really latched on to Bertwitz. 

[TexasTiger 13,026]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

What's your point?

What does Clinton campaign spending have to do with Mueller's indictments?

Nothing. It’s a nothingburger.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Man you've really latched on to Bertwitz. 

Dude doesn't wear a tinfoil hat and has common sense. What's not to like?

[homersapien 11,452]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Well............

http://hopelesslypartisan.com/the-paragraphs-of-the-day-240/

You are totally missing my point.   Unveiling the extent of Russian interference in our election is hardly "nothing". 

Maybe you feel that Trump's involvment in this is the only thing that matters and everything else is "nothing", but I can assure you, most people don't see it that way. 

I wouldn't be overly surprised if someone in Trump's gang collaborated - or knew what was going on - but it won't surprise me if Trump comes out clear.

Meanwhile, Trump just can't seem to admit the fact Russians actually did what they did.  Apparently, he is the only one in the entire government that feels that way.   Funny.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are totally missing my point.   Unveiling the extent of Russian interference in our election is hardly nothing. 

Maybe you feel that Trump's involvment in this is the only thing that matters and everything else is "nothing", but I can assure you, most people don't see it that way. 

I wouldn't be surprised if someone in Trump's gang collaborated - or knew what was going on - but It won't surprise me if Trump comes out clear.

Meanwhile, Trump can't seem to accept the fact Russians actually did what they did.  Apparently, he is the only one in the entire government that feels that way.   Funny.

It amounted to near nothing.

Never stated that.

Agree.

Trump has touted Russian interference did not affect the election outcome. Trump has touted no collusion. According to Deputy A.G Rod Rosenstein, 

"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge."

"[There is] no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election."  –Rod Rosenstein

 

[homersapien 11,452]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Dude doesn't wear a tinfoil hat and has common sense. What's not to like?

Well, he may, but the guy he's quoting in this piece is not thinking straight:

a) The indictments also state forcefully that despite their social media efforts, which ranged from creative to clumsy, the Russians had no impact on the election results.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced those findings in a flat monotone that belied their significance.

“There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity,” he said. "There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.”

 

a) is not equal to

 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Well, he may, but the guy he's quoting in this piece is not thinking straight:

a) The indictments also state forcefully that despite their social media efforts, which ranged from creative to clumsy, the Russians had no impact on the election results.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced those findings in a flat monotone that belied their significance.

“There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity,” he said. "There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.”

 

a) is not equal to

 

I welcome the evidence, not some weak ass partisan talking point, that Russia altered the outcome of the election. 

Who better than you to provide it?  I'll be here patiently waiting. And trust me, if it is out there, I want to see it.

[homersapien 11,452]

8 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

It amounted to near nothing.

Never stated that.

Agree.

Trump has touted Russian interference did not affect the election outcome. Trump has touted no collusion. According to Deputy A.G Rod Rosenstein, 

"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge."

"[There is] no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election."  –Rod Rosenstein

 

near nothing is the practical equavalent of nothing

Didn't say you did.

Trump doesn't admit the Russians were responsible.  And of course he says any interference had no effect on the election outcome, but that's not something that can be positively determined by anyone, is it?  Don't understand what you are trying to say in the last two clauses, they don't make sense as stand alone statements

So what? 

So what?

[homersapien 11,452]

6 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I welcome the evidence, not some weak ass partisan talking point, that Russia altered the outcome of the election. 

Who better than you to provide it?  I'll be here patiently waiting. And trust me, if it is out there, I want to see it.

I am sure you do.  It is impossible to determine the extent of the Russian effect on the election. That's exactly why no one has made such a claim.  It cannot be proven. 

Even by me.  

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And of course he says any interference had no effect on the election outcome, but that's not something that can be positively determined by anyone, is it?  Don't understand what you are trying to say in the last two clauses, they don't make sense as stand alone statements

Perhaps you should take that up with Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein. Afterall, I simply posted him verbatim.

[homersapien 11,452]

7 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Perhaps you should take that up with Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein. Afterall, I simply posted him verbatim.

Well, let me put it this way.  What they say is literal and obvious.  They both claim what is true about this indictment.  (I bolded the key qualifier for you.)

You seem to think they represent the final conclusion of Mueller's investigation.  They don't.  (See my post addressing the same point in the Bertwitz piece you referenced.)

 

[SaltyTiger 7,864]

22 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am sure you do.  It is impossible to determine the extent of the Russian effect on the election. That's exactly why no one has made such a claim.  It cannot be proven. 

Even by me.  

yet you are able to prove that earth will not exist as we know in 30 to 50 years due to climate change????? 

[homersapien 11,452]

4 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

yet you are able to prove that earth will not exist as we know in 30 to 50 years due to climate change????? 

Well not exactly.  But I can make a good case to any rational person with a pretty good knowledge of physical science.