The Mueller investigation.

[Quantum Quack]

News today...
yet even after a unanimous vote of the UN to implement an immediate 30 day ceasefire chemical weapons have again been deployed in Syria.
...and Trump and the rest of the world does nothing....
the red line is no longer existing... and chemical weapons are now by virtue of inaction by the world community the new norm.

Thanks Russia. Thanks Syria. Mon*anto is now back in business.....

 

[billvon]

News today...
yet even after a unanimous vote of the UN to implement an immediate 30 day ceasefire chemical weapons have again been deployed in Syria.
...and Trump and the rest of the world does nothing....

In all fairness, Trump has been very busy bragging about how brave he would have been at the school shooting, figuring out ways to keep his mistresses quiet and spending quality "executive time" with his TV. He doesn't have time for that poison gas stuff.

 

[Quantum Quack]

In all fairness, Trump has been very busy bragging about how brave he would have been at the school shooting, figuring out ways to keep his mistresses quiet and spending quality "executive time" with his TV. He doesn't have time for that poison gas stuff.

No doubt he has a large stake in Mon*anto....

 

[Quantum Quack]

if you (we) thought nukes were bad news... think again...

 

[Tiassa]

​

I will quote it here with some context. And I have emphasized the central sentence which has been omitted from this context.

From your quote of Putin:

My personal view is that the society should look after its children at least to be able to reproduce and not only thanks to migrants, but on its own base. We achieved what we had not experienced for a long time. In 2002, 2003, 2004 it seemed that we would never redress that absolutely terrible situation we had with the demographic crisis. It appeared that it was a demographic pit that would prove to have no bottom and we would continue investing in it endlessly.​

Aravosis was correct: "Putin reiterated his concern that Russia must get rid of the-gay, lest the country's birthrate not rebound sufficiently. Which is to suggest that somehow gay people will steal otherwise heterosexual Russians away from their opposite-sex spouses."

The reason Putin needed to answer questions about gay rights wasn't just the law, but also that social media was alight at the time with videos of Russians hunting and sexually torturing homosexuals↱.

Seriously: That's our Puti-Toots!
____________________

Notes:

Aravosis, Jon. "Putin wants to 'cleanse' Russia of gays, may have just admitted he's bi". AmericaBlog. 20 January 2014. AmericaBlog.com. 26 February 2018. http://bit.ly/2BORn2P

Teeman, Tim. "The 'Hunted' Gays of Putin's Russia: Vicious Vigilantes and State Bigotry Close Up". The Daily Beast. 6 October 2014. TheDailyBeast.com. 26 February 2018. http://thebea.st/2EXKH4n

 

[iceaura]

Your text somehow suggests that some of the differences between trolling and discussion can make such trolling a felony.

You are the one labeling the felony crimes "trolling". Not me. I'm just following your labeling.

I can distinguish them, but it is not the law which has to teach people how to talk in a civilized way

You can't distinguish them. At least, you have not been able to here.

What makes the difference is that one is an American citizen and the other one a Russian subhuman.

What makes the difference is having broken US law. I believe some Americans are caught up in this as well, and certainly American banks are involved.

What is the point of your speculations about Russian buyers? The indictment is about "money from real U.S. persons". If a rich Russian has some interest in supporting Trump because of some economic interest, he would find ways to organize this directly, giving money to Trump, instead of using such a nonsensical small-scale way to pay for a few pro-Trump tweeds.

Mueller now has access to the bank and possibly email etc records of whoever financed the trollfarm lawbreaking. If all Russian oligarchs followed your advice and procedures, then they are safe from that threat.

Russians have to remain silent if American Übermenschen talk about how to eliminate these subhumans, and if the subhumans dare to name Clinton a murderer for what she has done in Syria and Libya, this is a felony.

That you have to invent such silly bs should give you pause.

Meanwhile, a follower of the scene makes an interesting observation: some of the Russian stuff in the US was far more sophisticated than the Russian stuff in Europe - in France during the Macron campaign, for example, this same trollfarm's contribution was quite crude. The obvious explanation is that some of the Russian stuff was being coordinated and guided by US marketing professionals, who are the best in the world. That would also explain the remarkable precision and sophistication of Trump's social media efforts otherwise: http://yastreblyansky.blogspot.com/2018/02/schiff-memo-update-two-conspiracies.html#more

 

[Schmelzer]

Aravosis was correct: "Putin reiterated his concern that Russia must get rid of the-gay, lest the country's birthrate not rebound sufficiently. Which is to suggest that somehow gay people will steal otherwise heterosexual Russians away from their opposite-sex spouses."

"Russia must get rid of the gay"? This is clearly suggesting rather inhuman ways to get rid of them. And this based on a law which only forbids propaganda and an interview where Putin clarifies, after the sentence which is the base for this, that "we should do this in a modern and humane manner without offending anybody and without introducing second-class citizens"? This is a clear enough case of citation out of context, with the aim to distort the message. And you seem to support this, writing "Aravosis was correct", instead of, say, "Aravosis was, it seems, a victim of out of context citation by Al Jazeera", not?

The reason Putin needed to answer questions about gay rights wasn't just the law, but also that social media was alight at the time with videos of Russians hunting and sexually torturing homosexuals↱.

The guy who has organized these humiliations has been imprisoned for this. Which were, by the way, directed against those interested in meetings with teenagers. Interesting, what is your fate in the US, if you organize via the web a meeting with a 16-year-old boy, with the intention to have sex with him, and this becomes known because the teenager was a fake?

What makes the difference is having broken US law.

And US law is, of course, just. Even if it makes a felony to say that Clinton is a murderer so that you would better elect Trump if you are not a US citizen?

At least, that the following points appear in the indictment clearly indicates that doing this is somehow illegal, at least for non-US citizens:

44. By 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used their fictitious online personas to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.
46. In or around the latter half of 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators, through their ORGANIZATION-controlled personas, began to encourage U.S. minority groups not to vote in the 2016 U.S. presidential election or to vote for a third-party U.S. presidential candidate.

If I have misunderstood the law, explain what I have misunderstood. What I'm, as a non-US-citizen, allowed to say during an election campaign and what constitutes "conspiracy against the US".

BTW, the US now gives a lot of money to their own, state paid troll farms.
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/02/state-department-troll-farm-receives-huge-cash-infusion.html

 

[iceaura]

If I have misunderstood the law, explain what I have misunderstood.

You seem to to think their crime has something to do with what they said, specifically.

Even if it makes a felony to say that Clinton is a murderer so that you would better elect Trump if you are not a US citizen?

What they said is not the crime.

BTW, the US now gives a lot of money to their own, state paid troll farms.

Arms race. But Russia's elections are already dysfunctional, and its media suppressed, so there's not as much to target or as much potential for gain.
Advantage Russia.

Meanwhile, in Mueller's investigation, Deutsche Bank is back in the news - remember that stuff about bank records subpoenas ?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-05/deutsche-bank-said-to-be-subpoenaed-by-mueller
https://economia.icaew.com/en/news/...ned-504m-over-russian-money-laundering-claims
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/art...e-bank-ubs-and-hsbc-over-market-manipulation/
https://economia.icaew.com/en/news/february-2018/deutsche-bank-fined-for-misleading-customers
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32430710

Apparently the "asset management" side of Deutsche is the only division making bank - in other words, fines or no fines, without laundering money for Russian oligarchs and other bad guys DB would be toast.

And they are the only major bank willing to lend money to Trump in recent years.

And on the teeter side of the laundering totter, guess who else in Trump's government, handpicked by Manafort according to rumor, has some kind of weird, vague, odd-sounding connections in Russia? https://miningawareness.wordpress.c...tion-trump-vp-pence-link-to-russian-railways/

 

[Schmelzer]

You seem to to think their crime has something to do with what they said, specifically.

Why do you think so? I have proposed the hypothesis that their crime has to do with them being subhumans, who have only restricted free speech, in comparison with superhumans (US citizens) which have some right of free speech.

Arms race. But Russia's elections are already dysfunctional, and its media suppressed, so there's not as much to target or as much potential for gain.

LOL. Once Russia is damaging something in the US, this is a horrible crime, but if the US is damaging the same in Russia, this is nothing, because what the US is damaging is anyway worth nothing, because, according to the US propaganda, all this is not worth anything.

A really innovative justification.

Meanwhile, in Mueller's investigation, Deutsche Bank is back in the news - remember that stuff about bank records subpoenas ?

Why should I care? It is clear anyway that Mueller has all the data from the NSA. So, he now simply wants now some official, legal access to data he already knows.

Apparently the "asset management" side of Deutsche is the only division making bank - in other words, fines or no fines, without laundering money for Russian oligarchs and other bad guys DB would be toast.

Toasting the DB is, of course, part of economically hitting European (especially German) competitors. Same for Volkswagen. All the big firms make the "three felonies a day" they cannot avoid. And once the US decides to start an economic war with the EU, this is the natural way to attack.

If I would have been the DB manager, I would have created a US firm with a very expensive license to use the name "Deutsche Bank US" or so in the US, which would own, in every moment of time, almost nothing, or even a lot of debts, and would be legally independent of the original DB in Germany. Does US want to penalize DB? Ok, your choice, feel free to penalize "Deutsche Bank US". It is bankrupt immediately, and then a problem for the US customers. Same for Volkswagen. If they have anything else but a cheap distributor of cars in the US, which simply defaults if the US creates some problem with them, their fault.

 

[geordief]

Arms race. But Russia's elections are already dysfunctional, and its media suppressed, so there's not as much to target or as much potential for gain.
Advantage Russia.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/cybercom-rogers-trump-russian-cyber-threat/index.html

Being paranoid or should Americans be worried about upcoming elections if anyone is soft peddling on opposing tactics?

Can Trump or the Republicans continue to benefit from disinformation,release of partial information?

Realistically what can be done (apart from fingers in dykes) as retaliation like for like would probably play into Russian hands as they have no electoral process susceptible to influence by releasing information.

I remember how the iron curtain was circumvented by satellite tv and the E.European populations got direct access to Western media but things have changed and democracy itself seems to be discredited with populations living under autocratic regimes seemingly "happy" with their lot and "democracy" there effectively strangled for the foreseeable future.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Toasting the DB is, of course, part of economically hitting European (especially German) competitors. Same for Volkswagen. All the big firms make the "three felonies a day" they cannot avoid. And once the US decides to start an economic war with the EU, this is the natural way to attack.

I think you have missed Iceaura's point entirely...
I think he was saying that if the DB was not involved in illegal activity it would be broke. ( bankrupt - kaput - toast )

 

[billvon]

Meanwhile, in Mueller's investigation, Deutsche Bank is back in the news - remember that stuff about bank records subpoenas ?

Follow the money.

 

[Schmelzer]

I think you have missed Iceaura's point entirely...
I think he was saying that if the DB was not involved in illegal activity it would be broke. ( bankrupt - kaput - toast )

I was not objecting to this point, that's all. I was simply commenting on the possibility if it goes kaput.
If it crashes, this will be more serious than Lehmann Brothers. So, it will be saved at all costs. But not by the US, but by the EU/Germany. The US may think that the big crisis comes anyway, and in this case, it would better start in Germany than in the US. So, they may even try to toast it, penalizing it for whatever pretense they find, the more the better.

 

[iceaura]

I have proposed the hypothesis that their crime has to do with them being subhumans, who have only restricted free speech, in comparison with superhumans (US citizens) which have some right of free speech.

To repeat, slowly, just for you: Speech, any speech, is not their crime. Their crime has nothing to do with the content of their speech. They are not indicted for the content of anything they said.

It is clear anyway that Mueller has all the data from the NSA. So, he now simply wants now some official, legal access to data he already knows.

1) The NSA is not superhuman. It is not fully cooperative with the FBI, either.
2) Of course he needs official, legal access - he has to prove things in court, against all the resources of great wealth and Presidential power.

LOL. Once Russia is damaging something in the US, this is a horrible crime, but if the US is damaging the same in Russia, this is nothing, because what the US is damaging is anyway worth nothing, because, according to the US propaganda, all this is not worth anything.

A really innovative justification.

Nothing innovative about it. Standard nationalist politics for centuries - isolationist, patriotic, the kind you favor over globalism, remember?

Yes, when Russian organized criminals seriously damage things in the US it is regarded as a crime, by US citizens. We don't want our elections, economy, government etc, corrupted and damaged for Russian oligarch benefit, and we have laws against doing that.

If I would have been the DB manager, I would have created a US firm with a very expensive license to use the name "Deutsche Bank US" or so in the US, which would own, in every moment of time, almost nothing, or even a lot of debts, and would be legally independent of the original DB in Germany

Because everybody knows the more different banks in different countries you have laundering tens of billions of dollars and rubles and so forth and committing fraud and coordinating with each other to do it, the easier it is to conceal. And of course the Russians would have been strongly attracted to having their embezzled fortunes transferred to the US and sitting in US banks under the purview of Obama's executive administration and down the street from Clinton's banker buddy competitors. Genius.
Would have saved Mueller some work - he wouldn't have had to circle around through Russian troll farms and foreign governments for his discovery warrants and subpoenas.

 

[iceaura]

Being paranoid or should Americans be worried about upcoming elections if anyone is soft peddling on opposing tactics?

We have more to worry about from various Republican Party media dominations, voter suppressions, and election riggings, imho. That's what's been killing the Dems for the past twenty or thirty years, and nothing's been done about it.

 

[Schmelzer]

To repeat, slowly, just for you: Speech, any speech, is not their crime. Their crime has nothing to do with the content of their speech. They are not indicted for the content of anything they said.

The question is not for what they are not indicted, but for what they are indicted. What is wrong with doing the following:

44. By 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used their fictitious online personas to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.
46. In or around the latter half of 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators, through their ORGANIZATION-controlled personas, began to encourage U.S. minority groups not to vote in the 2016 U.S. presidential election or to vote for a third-party U.S. presidential candidate.

Of course, I know that in the US you can be indicted simply for nothing, three felonies a day.

Yes, when Russian organized criminals seriously damage things in the US it is regarded as a crime, by US citizens. We don't want our elections, economy, government etc, corrupted and damaged for Russian oligarch benefit, and we have laws against doing that.

You think that by naming these particular instances of free speech "our elections, economy, government etc, corrupted and damaged for Russian oligarch benefit", this is sufficient to show that one can, on the one hand, imprison those who do such things, but, on the other hand, claim there is free speech? I have already explained to you how, following this logic, we had free speech in Stalin time. Remember?

Nothing innovative about it. Standard nationalist politics for centuries - isolationist, patriotic, the kind you favor over globalism, remember?

No. I do not favor complete lawlessness, but the traditional international law, which is a contract law. And your nonsensical justification for the US everything it likes is not traditional international law, but lawlessness. Moreover, the point was not what is really done - here, strongest have always done what they like - but your justification for this. Justification, you know, it means to justify something, to show that this is not simply I'm stronger so I can do it, but to show that doing this is justified.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I have already explained to you how, following this logic, we had free speech in Stalin time. Remember?

When Hitler yelled out "Destruction of the Jews" (30th, Jan 1939), is this a good example of free speech in your understanding?
Free speech is fine until you promote illegal activity, fraud, slander, genocide and false allegation.

Freedom to speak your mind does have restrictions no matter where you are.

Put it this way,
The Russians and others are free to say what they like, not a problemo, but they must also take responsibility for the outcome of what they say or publish.

..and in most cases they made use of USA owned social media web platforms to do it with. Facebook, Twitter etc

Their freedom to break the law has consequences if they choose to do so., and every one is free to break the law.

 

[iceaura]

What is wrong with doing the following:

They were not indicted for that.
That is evidence supporting the indictments, which are for felony crimes. It is normal to present a case for indictment, in circumstances like this.

You think that by naming these particular instances of free speech

Again: They were not indicted for speaking, or for the content of their speech. Speech has nothing to do with the crimes charged.
Why aren't you paying attention? All you would have to do is notice the numbers on those items - 44, 46, etc - and compare with the actual counts for which they were indicted , which number 8 total https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/17020966/russia-indictments-mueller-internet-research-agency

The specific charges against the Russians include one broad “conspiracy to defraud the United States” count, but the rest are far narrower — one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and six counts of identity theft.

Of course, I know that in the US you can be indicted simply for nothing, three felonies a day.

Apparently you have no idea what an indictment is, or what you are reading when you read one.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Prediction:
As Mueller gets closer and closer to revealing secret Russian government/mafia collusion the more pressure there is on the Russians to dump their USA asset, Trump, as he proves to be more a liability than an asset.
When this happens the truth of the corruption will be staggering IMO.
Mueller himself will not bring down the presidency. The Russians will.

 

[billvon]

As Mueller gets closer and closer to revealing secret Russian government/mafia collusion the more pressure there is on the Russians to dump their USA asset, Trump, as he proves to be more a liability than an asset.

Well, except Trump's value to the Russians is the chaos he brings to US governance. They have a almost free hand now across the world. Keeping this state of affairs (US almost paralyzed by an ineffective president, multiple felony arrests of administration officials and an investigation causing chaos) is to their advantage.

When this happens the truth of the corruption will be staggering IMO.

Not much more than it is now. My prediction -

Trump Jr will be arrested for lying to the FBI; he has already met the standard for collusion with the Russians. Trump will then 1) deny it happened, 2) say "I never knew anything about it; I didn't even know Trump Jr that well" and 3) "Clinton did it first." His supporters will believe him; no one else will.

However, colluding with the Russians is not a crime. Lying under oath is, and Trump's lawyers have been smart enough so far to never let him get under oath. So he won't be charged, and every time a new indictment comes out that ISN'T for him he will say "See? This proves I am innocent! Thank you, Mr. Mueller, for PROVING my innocence."

Mueller himself will not bring down the presidency. The Russians will.

Neither one will. Trump will finish out his term, albeit with much of his administration in jail.