The Mueller investigation.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Feb 17, 2018.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I thought it was about time to start a thread that specifically deals with the Mueller inquiry, (special council investigation) that has been investigating Russian interference in the last Presidential elections that saw D. Trump elected.

    Latest news states that up to 13 Russian nationals have been subjected to an indictment with more news yet to come to the fore.​

    According to some reports (unconfirmed) Russian money was also used to employ USA citizens as well, to troll social media and stage rallies in support of Trump.

    Could it be that Trump is an innocent victim of Russian support? (no collusion)

    Would the Russians purely support Trump simply to ensure Hillary Clinton fails to win the election?
    If so:
    Why did the Russians fear the election of Hillary so badly that their intervention was deemed necessary?

    Surely if there was collusion between Trump and Putin evidenced, Mueller would have acted by now. But hey, this is about the USA so I guess anything is possible.

    • Russian interference
    • Collusion between Trump campaign and Russia.
    • Obstruction of justice
    • Hacking
    • Financial ties to Russia.

    anything else?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Given the state of play, globalization etc... the USA could just as easily interfere in the upcoming Russian elections. Will they retaliate? Are we in for a Cold cyber-war? (if not already)
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    We have much evidence of collusion as well, - the news of other Russian perfidy does not wipe that from the slate.
    Not fear of Clinton but gain from supporting Trump - win or lose - would be the visible motive. It is unlikely that Clinton would have pulled back on the sanctions as Trump has, for example. Keep in mind that the laundering of oligarch money and other financial benefits are significant - maybe even overriding - Russian interests. Trump is obviously the better choice for that. And the various side benefits of trashing US governance and the US economy could hardly have been lost on Putin and his allies - although my guess is they will regret doing that when the full spread of consequences falls on them.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    A question:
    If USA citizen knowingly took money from a Russian agency to pay for lobbying, pro Trump rallies, election interference, and social media pro-Trump trolling etc. would they be guilty of treason against the USA?
    The reason I ask this is that I am confident that the FBI will be able to track down those USA citizens on Putin's payroll and I wonder what charges they would face.
    Suffice to suggest that collusion with Russia is not an act restricted just to the Trump campaign or administration but also to any USA citizen or organization.
    ( the same could be asked of anything similar say in Australia or nations of Europe etc.)
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Call me nuts, but I got and still get the distinct impression that Hillary "had something" or was working on something to do with Russia that required her to be defeated in the election as a must, even if the Ruble costs were high.

    The attitude on video of one particular Russian during the campaign ( I would have to search for the video) seriously indicated that Hillary was indeed a significant threat to Russia's interests beyond mere sanctions etc. ( hence the washing of her private email server... perhaps)
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    OK, if you insist.
    You are bull goose bonkers NUTS.
    (feel better?)
    Meanwhile, It seems that Mueller is showboating here.
    Of what practical use is indicting 13 foreign nationals who are not on US soil?
    Can they be compelled to come to this country to appear before a grand jury?
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    What goes round comes round:

    If we set the rules why do you think we are justified in objecting when others play by those rules?
    Is this more of that "exceptionalism" rearing it's arrogant and ugly head?
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2018
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    I'll look around for a couple articles; it has to do with the fact that she was a powerful woman Putin perceived as having injured him. To the one, it was personal, to the other, she's a woman, which makes it doubly so.

    But it's the same kind of thing like when Putin tried to intimidate Angela Merkel↱; she did well enough in the moment, and then crushed him in the press: "I understand why he has to do this—to prove he's a man," the German Chancellor explained. "He's afraid of his own weakness. Russia has nothing, no successful politics or economy. All they have is this."

    But we are also creeping closer to the threshold by which we will actually be able to declare that it only took an international conspiracy to stop the first American female president.

    And, you know, that will probably hurt the feelings of some masculinisticish manly men.
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, it really doesn't. Mueller is on the edge of being fired, and under continual attack - he has no such luxury, elbow room: everything he does is calculated.
    We were breaking the rules - including our own. And anyone is "justified" in pointing to anyone breaking such rules - we won't get much sympathy, given our past, but that's hardly the point.

    As long as it's acknowledged and understood that the Republicans who abetted and benefitted from the Russian efforts to prang our elections corrupted and betrayed their own country in the interests of a foreign power, anyone who wants to help the Left highlight the American bad stuff that the Left has been trying to get into the headlines since the Korean War is very welcome to put their shoulder to the wheel.

    The Left hasn't even been able to get basic voting machine and tabulation security in place, let alone registration and logistic management and sophisticated cyber-stuff straightened out. We need all the help we can get.
    C'mon - you know better than that. That's leverage.
    The Republicans who abetted and benefitted from these crimes are now legally tied up with people formally indicted for felonies.
    The Russian "government" has another breach it has to defend, another vulnerability.
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2018
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Follow the money. As far as is visible Hillary was no special threat to "Russia's" interests as a country - any more than any random Republican would be. Meanwhile the Russians focused on Trump, out of all possible Clinton foes, long before he had any obvious shot at winning. They didn't, apparently, hedge their bets early on, with others apparently more likely to defeat Clinton.
    This is the thing: the ruble costs were not that high. They didn't put that much into it, specifically against Clinton. They didn't have to - the heavy lifting (the creation of the Republican base, the acquiring of control over the voting logistics and tabulation etc, the organization of propaganda feeds and media amplification), was done by others. The Koch brothers alone, among the dozen or so pezzonovantes in the American fascist movement, probably outspent the Russians by multiples. Bots are cheap - State governments in control of voting logistics are expensive.
  14. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    LOL, retaliation. The US is well-known everywhere for interfering in every election which is somehow interesting for them, all over the world. And certainly they interfere in every Russian election, all the time. We are, of course, in a Cold cyberwar. The Russians have already speculated during the whole last year not about will the US try to interfere, but how.
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    (takes innocent profile)
    But The USA always attempts to inspire democracy in nations that appear to seriously lack it... don't they?????

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Do you recall the shooting down of MA17 (Ukraine 17th, July 2014)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    and the later arrival of 100's of white , mainly empty(?) aid trucks (16th, August 2014)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    yet to be resolved ....yes?

    I tend to believe Hillary had the info that may have put Putin in a really difficult position if she became POTUS. That what ever happened in the Ukraine had to be handled extremely carefully (and still does) to avoid global hysterics.
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2018
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    LOL. Hillary knows something which could seriously put Putin in a difficult position, but Obama did not know it, or decided not to use it because he likes Putin so much?

    BTW, about the "mainly empty": The first of these aid caravans had a really difficult job - they had to reach the almost encircled Lugansk. In that situation, they had to drive not on the main road but to follow small village roads. I hope you can imagine what is a small village road, Soviet time, with nothing done there after 1990. To prevent stalling, quite dangerous at that time (they could have easily attacked if their position would have been known to the fascists) it was very reasonable to use only half of the possible maximal cargo. The fascist tried to prevent this caravan and invented the claim that the other half have been weapons, which was nothing but laughable. (And not because there would have been no ways to transfer weapons - but the very idea that this first official caravan, which was in all the media, would have been used in such a primitive way to transfer them is what is laughable.)

    Thinking about the accusations against those 13 Russians, it may be an interesting shift in the anti-Russian propaganda. The old pattern was one can claim whatever one likes, no proofs necessary, if somebody asks for proofs one refers to the secret services, and, of course, the proofs are there but so secret that one cannot present them to the public. This is, of course, sufficient for a lot of sheeple, certainly sufficient for fanatics like CptBork or joepistole, but it is not a problem at all for the Russians. They even love to write about all such claims in their media and use that well-known picture with Powell in the UN, as an illustration, no further comments necessary.

    It may be that the US has understood that this old scheme no longer works, or works only for those sheeple who are anyway not a problem at all and go back to accusations they really can prove. That would be good - it would be no longer necessary to care every day if the next gas attack fake has been started. (The Russians have issued a warning that in the next days a new such attack is planned, White Helmets and reporters with microphones with CNN labels have been seen near Sarakib in circumstances which suggest preparations for a new fake, Macron for whatever reasons mentioning gas attacks is also a bad sign. Usually such open warnings have at least the effect of changing the place and shifting the fake in time, but there is not much time left before the Russian elections and Russian elections without any major anti-Russian US action? Hard to imagine.)

    But, on the other hand, accusing Russia only of things they can really prove will not give much. 13 Russian trolls using false identities to distribute their opinions about Clinton - I'm not really impressed.
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No different than any other President, a dozen employees at State some still there, the appropriate folks at the Pentagon, the CIA and NSA cadres of Russia watchers, etc.
    People paying better attention are impressed - so predictably that the mere possibility was routinely and repeatedly denied, any proponents mocked and slandered, a major propaganda effort devoted to obscuring and undermining the accusations.
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Oh no (if so) ... Obama knew about it and the issue must have been big enough for Trump to tone down his "Jail Hillary" rhetoric once he learned of it, after winning the election. The video clip on the local news here showing him leaving his first meeting after the election with Obama had him looking like he had seen a ghost...

    Why do you think Trump hasn't pursued Hillary?
    There is nothing stopping him from launching a special prosecutor investigation that we know of...
    Why didn't he do it as a retaliation for the current Mueller investigation?
  20. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    ???????? Who has denied that among the many trolls in the net there will be a lot of Russian trolls too? There would be no point denying this. What has been denied by the Russians was the hack of that server of the Democrats. There would be no point for the Russians to deny that Russian people are doing what all the world is doing too - to use the net in anonymous or pseudonymous ways for distribution of information in support of their political or economic interests.

    If he looked that way there may be a lot of reasons for this. Imagine he has learned about a more realistic version of 9/11. (Whatever this could be, it is open to speculation, but it seems sufficient for Trump not to open everything about 9/11 up to now.)

    Whatever it was, some information about minor evil things done by evil Putin would have had any effect of this type. (The worst case of MH17 would be that it was shot by accident by the Russians and they did not acknowledge this. Accidental shots of civil airplanes have happened a lot of time, and nobody likes to admit them so that this would be a serious defeat for the Russians in the information war, but nothing serious. The Russian delivery of weapons for the Donbass is as "secret" as the US support for ISIS, everybody knows it, but the other side has no ironclad proof, so there is no reason to admit it openly. So, the reaction of the Russian officials if questioned is simply an "Oh, we do this? Do you have a proof? Show it.") So, both points would be clearly unwanted but almost irrelevant to Putin. And certainly even less relevant to Obama and Trump. So, they would obviously have published any proofs if they would had them.
    sculptor likes this.
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Organized and financed by Russian government, informed and guided by the resources of the Russian intelligence services, in order to damage the electoral process and the US as a country, for Russian benefit.
    So the fact that they did deny what they were doing, and so did the participating Americans, is yet another telling circumstance.
    There would, as you say, be no point in denying ordinary trolling by unorganized individuals.
    There would be no point in denying something Chinese and Japanese and Indians and Germans and Canadians and Mexicans were doing all the time.
    There would be no point in denying "distribution of information" at all.
    But the Russians apparently are not going to extradite - or even make available for deposition etc - the trolls Mueller named and indicted. Russia appears to have no more interest in investigating this matter than in investigating the large scale money-laundering and embezzlement from its own government, the deaths of journalists and lawyers and Putin-inconveniencing politicians, and the Russian involvements of Americans and international bankers, leading up to and surrounding this chain of events.
    And all subsequent participation in the events that followed - some of which seem to have altered the outcome of the US Presidential election. Many of these denials appear to be false.
    And good reason to hide it, since it invalidates claims of good motive and accordance with international law and all the rest of Putin's bs.
  22. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    First, if one distributes information against a particular candidate, this is not a "damage" of the electoral process, but simply the usual way to use it. To damage US as a country? Not at all. It is certainly better for the US too if the elected president will not start a war against Russia, as Clinton has promised (ok, she has promised only to do things which would make such a war very probable, but not to have such a president is nonetheless positive for the US). The US does not like it if Russians participate? Ok, but why should Russia care? The US themselves heavily influences all Russian elections, and what the US is doing should be fine if others are learning from the US, not? From a Russian point of view, this is nothing but the usual freedom of speech of Russian people in Russia, also an American value, not? Ok, even if using pseudonyms is standard, it is not fine to use real names of real persons who do not know about this, but this is essentially nothing, the real harm to these persons is minimal.

    What else? Informed and guided by the Russian intelligence services? LOL. What do you think is the job of the Russian intelligence services, if not working for the Russian benefit?
    Did they? Link please. (Not to some Western propaganda fantasies, but to some Russian original. Or at least to some propaganda fantasy with a link, or at least particular information about who said what.
    So you are against freedom of association? Should Russia forbid trollers to organize in free associations?
    Of course. That's even forbidden by the Russian constitution. Those who do unlawful things outside of Russia can be sent to prison based on Russian law by a Russian court, so no problem if this was some real crime.
    Many of them? Then it will be simple for you to link some of them. I'm waiting.
    Not at all. Russia could have easily got a UNSC approval based on R2P for the people of the Donbass, at least after the completely unprovoked airforce attack against Lugansk if not for the unfortunate point that the war was supported by the US, and the US has veto power in the UNSC. But this does not change the moral motives. And having the weapons and leaving the Russians there without them, as the victims of the fascists - this was completely unacceptable for the Russians.

    Moreover, the Russians had the request of the legal president Yanukovych for military help against the coup, and the permission of the Duma to start a military action. So, as from international law, as from national law, even the open use of military force would have been fine.
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Elections? Do you dare to use that word for anything to do with Russia?
    Elected by who? Certainly not the people by way of free and anonymous vote?

    At least the USA has a democratic system that CAN be interfered with. The same can not be said for Russia in that it is not a democracy.
    What point would there be in promoting an opposition party or individual that doesn't exist?

Share This Page