The Mueller investigation.

[iceaura]

Iceaura is obviously in denial mode, repeats a mantra, and does not even try to explain what is the difference between the US law and Stalin's 58-4.

You have demonstrated that you do not know, or care, which American laws the Russians have been indicted for violating. Given that, there is no reason to bother with your irrelevancies about Stalinist jurisprudence.

I criticize here some particular US laws,

No, you don't. You seem to have no idea what laws are involved here.

The power of the Mafia was declining, and, correspondingly, the number of journalists murdered by the Mafia was declining too.

The number of murdered journalists often declines as the Mafia gains power, not loses it. There is less need to murder journalists when the inconvenient ones are simply not hired, not published, etc.

One should also be careful about the meaning of "damaging the US election process". There is no such damage to the process if all that is done is participation in the public discussion, which is part of this process.

Again: read the indictment. They are not charged with participation in a public discussion. They are not charged for the content of anything they published or posted or wrote or said.

The firm which was accused was simply making money by selling their services to Americans.

Again: those individuals broke the law. People who break the law because they were paid to break the law are still guilty, see - it doesn't matter who paid them.

According to what I have seen in the indictment, the Russian government is there only in your fantasy

That's not in the indictment, and would not be expected in any such indictment.
You seem to have no idea what an indictment is, or why they even exist in American law. Perhaps this is a consequence of confusing Stalinist law with American law?
- - -

And at least those who are not afraid of the US starting a war against them, but have experienced all the time how the US meddles in their elections, will be happy to learn from America how to get rid of this.

Or, perhaps, too busy dealing with the consequences of America not getting rid of this.
Because the jury's still out on that one. And the American corporate interests, backed by the US military, are not going anywhere. Neither are the Russian ones, or the Chinese. It's not just America that will be stuck with the consequences of the Republican Party ascendency in the US.

I'm not suggesting that what Russia did was ok, only that we stick our noses in other sovereign nations elections as well, thus it seems hypocritical of us to complain.

But not at all hypocritical to defend ourselves. Thieves protect their own possessions - that's not hypocrisy.

 

[FauxItalian]

But not at all hypocritical to defend ourselves. Thieves protect their own possessions - that's not hypocrisy.

...but if they complain after someone robs them, that IS hypocrisy.

 

[spidergoat]

To us, of course it isn't. To the outside observer...?

Who, Putin? Name one actual Democracy.

 

[Tiassa]

I'm not suggesting that what Russia did was ok, only that we stick our noses in other sovereign nations elections as well, thus it seems hypocritical of us to complain.

¿And?

No, really: Good, great, seems hypocritical. And?

It's just never clear what difference that makes aside from having said so.

Our campaign finance laws say nothing "of value" can be used or offered to influence our elections, but aren't trade deals "of value"? It sounds like we violate the principles of our own laws in dealing with other nations. Isn't that the definition of hypocrisy?

That makes no sense. The answer to your question is that your question makes no sense.

I mean, it sounds like you're comparing, say, policy arguments, to the one, with oppo research (a thing of value) and, potentially, the produce of crime, to the other; then again, that can't be right, because it is absurd and nobody would seriously propose such a juxtaposition, so it's probably easier to not insult your intelligence by projecting what strange things you might mean and simply ask you to please help other people understand what you're asking.

 

[iceaura]

...but if they complain after someone robs them, that IS hypocrisy.

Not unless they complain about the existence of thievery in the world, or disparage the character of thieves, or some such. Otherwise: they've been robbed, they don't like being robbed, there's no pretense involved.

So you object not to the investigation, the indictments, the self-defense, or even the establishment of injury, but to an attitude you see adopted by some largely ignorant Americans about special Russian bad character?

 

[billvon]

Our campaign finance laws say nothing "of value" can be used or offered to influence our elections, but aren't trade deals "of value"?

?? Yes. And that's what Kushner is currently accused of doing.

(Just to make it clear, Russia is not subject to the laws of the US, so they can say whatever they like - and often do. It is illegal for AMERICANS to accept such deals.)

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ex-trump aid Sam Nunberg says he would refuse to appear on Mueller subpoena.

WASHINGTON—A former Trump campaign aide said Monday he would refuse to testify before a grand jury impaneled by the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and wouldn’t provide documents related to senior Trump associates and campaign officials.
src: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ex-tru...-hed-defy-subpoena-in-russia-probe-1520283618​

 

[Schmelzer]

You seem to have no idea what an indictment is, or why they even exist in American law. Perhaps this is a consequence of confusing Stalinist law with American law?

Perhaps. I have asked you some questions in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-mueller-investigation.160560/page-7#post-3508222 with the hope that you can explain me the difference between Stalinist law and American law, and there was no answer, except the usual "you are stupid" repetitions.

All your rhetorics could be easily used to defend Stalinist law. "Again: those individuals broke the law." "They are not charged with participation in a public discussion. They are not charged for the content of anything they published or posted or wrote or said. " Indeed, they broke 58-4. Any kind of help to "international bourgeoisie" which, not recognizing the equality of communist political system, strives to overthrow it". So, you use a line of argumentation which does not even suggest a minor difference between Stalinist law and American law.

 

[iceaura]

Perhaps. I have asked you some questions in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-mueller-investigation.160560/page-7#post-3508222 with the hope that you can explain me the difference between Stalinist law and American law,

Why would I bother with an irrelevancy like that?

All your rhetorics could be easily used to defend Stalinist law

I assume Stalinist functionaries wrote many nice fantasies in their books of law. Likewise Putinist functionaries - I'll bet there's a law against laundering embezzled money via US real estate dealings, or jailing and fatally abusing foreign lawyers investigating corruption in Russian corporate dealings, for example. So?

 

[Schmelzer]

Why would I bother with an irrelevancy like that?
I assume Stalinist functionaries wrote many nice fantasies in their books of law. Likewise Putinist functionaries - I'll bet there's a law against laundering embezzled money via US real estate dealings, or jailing and fatally abusing foreign lawyers investigating corruption in Russian corporate dealings, for example. So?

Nothing. You simply have to live with the fact, that I see no big difference between Stalin time law and actual US law, and that I can now say that you seem, obviously, unable to provide arguments to distinguish them.

And, even more, I'm able now to link this discussion worldwide and claim that it shows that even in an obviously pro-American forum no counter-arguments have been provided.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Nothing. You simply have to live with the fact, that I see no big difference between Stalin time law and actual US law, and that I can now say that you seem, obviously, unable to provide arguments to distinguish them.

What was Stalin's laws on a free press?
Probably the same as Putins...

And, even more, I'm able now to link this discussion worldwide and claim that it shows that even in an obviously pro-American forum no counter-arguments have been provided.

and make your claims even more ridiculous than they already are?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Hey Schmelzer, where would you prefer to live ( of the two alternatives provided)?
Moscow or New York?

 

[iceaura]

You simply have to live with the fact, that I see no big difference between Stalin time law and actual US law

Which is completely meaningless, since you are apparently unable to recognize or comprehend US law even from an explicit indictment. Lord knows if you have any better idea of Stalinist law, but you certainly can't do any comparing.

And, even more, I'm able now to link this discussion worldwide and claim that it shows that even in an obviously pro-American forum no counter-arguments have been provided.

And no doubt a lot of equally gullible ignoramuses will take you seriously. We have them in the US as well.

Did I win my bet on Putinist law - that in Putin's Russia there are laws against embezzling money and laundering it overseas, and laws against jailing and murdering lawyers who attempt to obtain legal redress from those who do that, and so forth?

 

[iceaura]

Ex-trump aid Sam Nunberg says he would refuse to appear on Mueller subpoena.

He says it's too much trouble. He feels put upon, on account of the work involved. It seems to amount to about 700 days of emails etc. (If as he says he never talked to Carter Page et al, it's a bit odd that providing such nonexistent emails or records would be a lot of work).
Of course, he could simply dump all his Trump campaign records on Mueller and have the investigating team do the winnowing - somehow I doubt he would be willing to do that.
He doesn't sound like the brightest bulb on the tree, in interviews, but he's not that big a fool.

The list of people he is required to turn over his records on is damning otherwise - recall that Mueller presented evidence to a judge for each of those names, to obtain the subpoena: that means Mueller has subpoena level evidence on essentially everyone in Trump's upper level campaign staff. They are all dirty, one degree from felony at best, every single one of them.
Hicks is not going to be the last to bail out.

It looks, actually, as if the Qatari event alone could bring this entire administration down.

 

[Schmelzer]

What was Stalin's laws on a free press?

I have quoted one of the most important once. "58-4. Any kind of help to "international bourgeoisie" which, not recognizing the equality of communist political system, strives to overthrow it".

Probably the same as Putins...

No, there is nothing serious. The same stupidity as in the West, where every advertisement about some medicine has to be accompanied by a boring "about risks and side effects ask your physician or pharmacist", in Russia every reference to ISIS has to be accompanied by a boring "an organization illegal in the Russian Federation". Stupid and boring, as usual for what states do, but harmless.

and make your claims even more ridiculous than they already are?

You have at least tried to give some arguments, but, so what, not very strong.

Hey Schmelzer, where would you prefer to live ( of the two alternatives provided)?
Moscow or New York?

You seriously ask this question? Certainly Moscow. I'm looking now

these are completely pro-American, anti-Putin guys, but they have some culture, and a much higher intellectual level that what I see here, say:

Which is completely meaningless, since you are apparently unable to recognize or comprehend US law even from an explicit indictment. Lord knows if you have any better idea of Stalinist law, but you certainly can't do any comparing. And no doubt a lot of equally gullible ignoramuses will take you seriously. We have them in the US as well.

What's this? Not even an argument, it is simply ...

Did I win my bet on Putinist law - that in Putin's Russia there are laws against embezzling money and laundering it overseas, and laws against jailing and murdering lawyers who attempt to obtain legal redress from those who do that, and so forth?

Was there some disagreement about such trivialities? Russia has completely normal and average law codes. Some of these laws are stupid, as everywhere, American law seems more stupid.

 

[iceaura]

What's this? Not even an argument,

Live by the empty claim, die by the empty claim. Yours are of course wrong, as well as empty, but that's because you don't understand American law and legal systems - or scientific research infrastructure, racial politics, media operations, etc.

You don't know what Mueller's doing, or why, or under what authority, and you cannot acquire information about it through your propaganda filters - they are set up to exclude information. So you're screwed, as far as making sense about American domestic affairs.

Meanwhile: Mueller's subpoenas indicate an approaching crisis in American governance - the choice between accepting a fascist government, or uprooting it with the dramatic consequences of such an endeavor. Denying its existence is soon going to be impossible for any but the terminally impaired.

This was always the danger of Trump - the denial that allowed Republican Party takeover is impossible with Trump's personality, but that alone does not rid the country of his governance. He's cornered the country. The prospect before us is a country that will renege on the responsibility of removing him, even knowing who he is and what he's doing. That would do permanent damage. With Republicans of the past denial allowed procrastination, allowed time to wait out the storm - after being woke to W, we had only a couple years left of his vandalism. But now it's going to be an actual, positive, eyes-open choice in which the bad choice is easier to make, less effort and initiative, but thereby more destructive of the country as a whole

 

[iceaura]

For the fans:
From Jane Mayer here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier

A longtime friend of Steele’s pointed out to me that Steele was in a singularly unenviable predicament. The dossier had infuriated both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump by divulging allegedly corrupt dealings between them. “You’ve got oligarchs running both superpowers,” the friend said. “And, incredibly, they both hate this same guy.”

quoted here
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/...n-between-trumps-team-and-moscow-intercepted/

Robert Hannigan, then the head of the U.K.’s intelligence service the G.C.H.Q., had recently flown to Washington and briefed the C.I.A.’s director, John Brennan, on a stream of illicit communications between Trump’s team and Moscow that had been intercepted. (The content of these intercepts has not become public.)

Mueller has a ton of this stuff.

And because there ought to be more in Russian posted in this thread (there's a link to naked pictures of the girl) :
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/6/17083720/trump-russia-news-nastya-rybka

For another, it wasn’t just any top Russian government official who accompanied them on Deripaska’s yacht — it was Sergei Prikhodko, Russia’s deputy prime minister, a longtime Putin ally who has a foreign policy portfolio and is a very high-ranking official indeed.

and a Russian blogger with his take:

 

[Schmelzer]

"

For the fans:
and a Russian blogger with his take:

YMMD, "a Russian blogger" for Navalny, the most important pro-American figure in actual Russian politics, a candidate for the Russian presidency (who was not allowed to participate because of a conviction).

About the content: Of course, Deripaska is a top oligarch. The other guy is Sergei Eduardovich Prikhodko, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Eduardovich_Prikhodko who was a top politician already in Yeltsin time, so that Navalny does not even need any argument (which he gives) to suggest that he is rich and that the fact that he is rich is based not on any legal income but on corruption - at that time they all have been corrupt, and they all were good friends with the oligarchs.

Given this information - that he has been on the top already in Yeltsin time - to name three days on a yacht with Deripaska - with or without prostitutes - a bribe is simply funny. You cannot bribe a rich man with three days on a yacht.

Another point of Navalny was even funnier - that they have talked about politics. Of course, they talk about politics. This is something Russians like to talk about, a lot. Mee too. I remember the three weeks I had to spend in the US were extremely boring - I have found nobody to talk with about interesting things - except one Russian. We have immediately found a lot of things worth to talk about. In particular politics.

Nobody has some doubt that all the material Navalny gets is from US secret services. It is quite obvious that all this was prepared outside Russia, given the complete failure to understand what Russian mentality about all this.

• No Russian would consider a three-day visit to some friend a bribe.
• No Russian would consider talking about politics as evidence for something having to do with politics, even if only average men would be involved, and even if talking only with prostitutes.
• No Russian would doubt that somebody in a top political position during Yeltsin time is very rich. (And nobody would not even care about this. They all know that if they would have been in such a position at that time they would be very rich too.)

And they all know that Putin understands all this too. They also all know about the offer Putin has made at that time to the oligarchs including Deripaska: Stay out of politics, pay taxes and follow the law, and I will not touch what you have robbed. And they also understand that the top politicians at that time have received similar offers too. And they all know about the strategy followed by Putin: If there is an agreement, he will follow the agreement. If the offer is rejected, there will be a fight, and the next offer will be worse. In other words, if somebody was corrupt during Yeltsin time, this is not an issue at all. What would be serious evidence now would be evidence about corruption now. Navalny has presented none.

The reaction of Prichodko is also quite interesting. "По большому счету, на такое надо было бы ответить по-мужски, но останемся в рамках правового поля". "In principle, one would have to answer this like a man to a man. But let's remain in the field of legality". Or, translated by me from diplomatic to plain language, "in principle I would have to smash your face, but you low an animal to care about you, I leave this to my lawyers." Such a reaction, I think, would be unimaginable in the US today, so that this illustrates quite large cultural differences. On the other hand, it also illustrates some modification which happened during the last years. At Yeltsin time, he would have reacted in a quite different way, without any lawyers, and with a quite low probability for Navalny's survival. And, knowing this, Navalny would not have published such a video.

The most interesting thing about all this was that it clarified, by the way, the hacking order. In the book of the prostitute, which worked with pseudonyms, nicknames were used. For Deripaska, a boys name, "Ruslan", for Prikhodko "Papa", father. In Yeltsin time, it would have been Prikhodko who would have named Deripaska "Papa", now it is Deripaska who names a politician "Papa". So, indeed, Russia is actually not an oligarchy - the oligarchs submit to the state.

And because of this side information, I have to thank you for linking this video.

 

[iceaura]

Given this information - that he has been on the top already in Yeltsin time - to name three days on a yacht with Deripaska - with or without prostitutes - a bribe is simply funny. You cannot bribe a rich man with three days on a yacht.

You missed the point. The point was the blatant illegality - that he wasn't actually being bribed, but took the trouble anyway (and broke the law with impunity), makes it more, not less, suggestive.

who was a top politician already in Yeltsin time, so that Navalny does not even need any argument (which he gives) to suggest that he is rich and that the fact that he is rich is based not on any legal income but on corruption - at that time they all have been corrupt, and they all were good friends with the oligarchs.

And they still are.

Another point of Navalny was even funnier - that they have talked about politics. Of course, they talk about politics. This is something Russians like to talk about, a lot. Mee too. I remember the three weeks I had to spend in the US were extremely boring - I have found nobody to talk with about interesting things - except one Russian

I wouldn't talk about politics with you either - unless I was interested in Russian politics. You have nothing to say about domestic American politics that isn't shoveled at me 24/7 on wingnut talk radio and other Republican-backing media feed outlets - the entire base of US political discussion among interesting people is invisible to you. Race is fundamental, here, for example. So is gender. How about if I tried to go to Russia and talk politics, and I knew nothing about the old Soviet Union, thought WWII was started by Stalin over import tariffs, and posted videos of Putin with his shirt off as evidence of his being a gay porn star?

Nobody has some doubt that all the material Navalny gets is from US secret services

One would assume at least some is. So?

Such a reaction, I think, would be unimaginable in the US today, so that this illustrates quite large cultural differences

You are joking?

The most interesting thing about all this was that it clarified, by the way, the hacking order. In the book of the prostitute, which worked with pseudonyms, nicknames were used. For Deripaska, a boys name, "Ruslan", for Prikhodko "Papa", father. In Yeltsin time, it would have been Prikhodko who would have named Deripaska "Papa", now it is Deripaska who names a politician "Papa"

"Pecking" order (unless speaking within some specialty computer-nerd group I don't belong to).
And the establishment of Deripaska as subordinate, as acting according to Russian State will, is central to some of the apparent incoming charges - that's likely to be one of Mueller's claims.

So, indeed, Russia is actually not an oligarchy - the oligarchs submit to the state.

You are joking. I knew it.

 

[Tiassa]

You are joking. I knew it.

One of the ... well, right, I mean, it's pretty clear that regardless of how we draw dualistic partisan lines or what labels we give them, it seems as obvious as anything else under the sun that there are reasons the antisocial argument is what benefits from pointless distraction.

That is, when one has no rational, supportable purpose, the incentive to screw the discourse around like that grows stronger.

But it also seems worth noting our neighbor's mistake: It does not, in certain relevant contexts matter what no true Scotsman, excuse me, no Russian would think; the relevant context is the Special Counsel's Office: What matters here is what American law says about the intersections of these events and people.

Except it's not a mistake:

I remember the three weeks I had to spend in the US were extremely boring - I have found nobody to talk with about interesting things - except one Russian.

That's what it's about. All the rest is noise.