What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Trump-Russia Investigation Thread: Mueller Goes Terminator Edition

Reaction..

  • Huh?

    Votes: 2 6.3%
  • Seriously?

    Votes: 6 18.8%
  • ... are we in some crappy technothriller?

    Votes: 23 71.9%
  • WTF?

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • Total voters
    32
Is this... is this some monty pythonesque joke?

Jesuschrist the USA's political life never ceases to depress me.
Here's the thing, it has been devolving that way ever since the Dixiecrats managed to take over the GOP in the '80s. Russia simply used them as pawns/pasties/useful idiots for their grander Active Measures BS.
 
Russia claims their Active Measures operation is a MILITARY operation
So there's this.

Eric Geller on Twitter

The Russian government recently responded to the DNC's hacking lawsuit, saying that even if it did hack the DNC, that was a military activity exempt from prosecution due to Moscow's sovereign immunity.


Russia is saying that their election fuckery was a military operation, AKA an act of war. That would mean that any American who cooperated with them is legally guilty of treason.

I think Putin might have just burned Trump.
 
So there's this.

Eric Geller on Twitter




Russia is saying that their election fuckery was a military operation, AKA an act of war. That would mean that any American who cooperated with them is legally guilty of treason.

I think Putin might have just burned Trump.
Not only that, but this is undoubtedly an act of war which means anyone supporting Russia are now traitors to the US, even by it's strict definition.
 
It's really nice how you guys twist the words... and pretty repulsive. The Russian reasoning is:
1. We didn't do it.
2. If we would have done it the way you claim, i.e. using our military cyber capabilities, it could not be prosecuted because it's by US' own reasoning (from past US cyber attacks) a sovereign act.
What they're saying is "if you insist that this was a Russian government's action, you cannot prosecute it in courts, by your own rules."
 
Last edited:
It's really nice how you guys twist the words... and pretty repulsive. The Russian reasoning is:
1. We didn't do it.
2. If we would have done it the way you claim, i.e. using our military cyber capabilities, it could not be prosecuted because it's by US' own reasoning (from past US cyber attacks) a sovereign act.
What they're saying is "if you insists that this was a Russian government's action, you cannot prosecute it in courts, by your own rules."
You clearly are part of Active Measures!
 
You clearly are part of Active Measures!
Clearly... :) Lately it seems that basic reading skills are active measures. And when combined with critical thinking it's outright act of war against the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kol
Clearly... :) Lately it seems that basic reading skills are active measures. And when combined with critical thinking it's outright act of war against the US.
Lately?! It was already an act of sedition back in 2003 with the whole Iraq thing. Remember the Freedom Fries and how we were the enemies for stating the obvious about the illegal war of aggression? Putin ain't Active Measures, he's just late at being French. :p
 
Lately?! It was already an act of sedition back in 2003 with the whole Iraq thing. Remember the Freedom Fries and how we were the enemies for stating the obvious about the illegal war of aggression? Putin ain't Active Measures, he's just late at being French. :p
Oh I do remember. But you have to admit, this "you're either with us or against us" mentality got a lot worse lately. Even radical, you could say. Man, I'm practically becoming a fan of Macron just because he has the spine to say something unpopular in the US from time to time, like that the EU needs its own sovereignty and a military to protect it.
 
Oh I do remember. But you have to admit, this "you're either with us or against us" mentality got a lot worse lately. Even radical, you could say. Man, I'm practically becoming a fan of Macron just because he has the spine to say something unpopular in the US from time to time, like that the EU needs its own sovereignty and a military to protect it.
Try to get ahold of the movie The French Minister. It's all about the office life and mess of the Foreign Affairs Ministry during the months before the famous speech at the UN against the Iraq Illegal War of Aggression. Pretty funny comedy about the French Deep State trying with no money, no personel and no equipment to keep some control over the international order. The focus? The new speechwriter guy.
 
Try to get ahold of the movie The French Minister. It's all about the office life and mess of the Foreign Affairs Ministry during the months before the famous speech at the UN against the Iraq Illegal War of Aggression. Pretty funny comedy about the French Deep State trying with no money, no personel and no equipment to keep some control over the international order. The focus? The new speechwriter guy.
Thanks, I'll watch it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kol
The Russian reasoning is:
1. We didn't do it.
Which is a lie.


2. If we would have done it the way you claim, i.e. using our military cyber capabilities, it could not be prosecuted because it's by US' own reasoning (from past US cyber attacks) a sovereign act.
What they're saying is "if you insist that this was a Russian government's action, you cannot prosecute it in courts, by your own rules."
Which doesn't change the fact that that makes the hacking an act of war and every American collaborator a traitor. I mean, Trump et al. were already de facto traitors, this just elevates it to de jure status.
 
Which is a lie.
Which doesn't change the fact that that makes the hacking an act of war and every American collaborator a traitor. I mean, Trump et al. were already de facto traitors, this just elevates it to de jure status.
I don't care about Trump and all the hysteria around him and the e-mail leaks etc. But you should learn what the term "act of war" means (because it doesn't mean what you think it does) and what the terms "de facto" and "de jure" mean, because you're using them incorrectly, too. You should also change the threadmark "Russia claims their Active Measures operation is a MILITARY operation" because that is absolutely and very clearly a lie.
More importantly, you should read the actual text of the Statement submitted by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, because without it you're actually just importing twitter hysteria and stupidity into FiC, without contributing to a meaningful debate (meaningful debate cannot be based on grossly altered statements).
But I am also glad that you've posted the link to the tweet, since I haven't yet seen the MoJ statement that it links to, so thank you for that.
 
Last edited:
Well, the same "surefire intelligence" folks who tried to pay women to accuse Mueller apparently filed a false police report accusing Avenatti of domestic abuse (both his wife and exwife deny that any abuse occured and deny sending the report). And we know it was Surefire, because the twats actually took credit on Twitter.
 
Julian Assange -of Wikileaks fame- has been charged, inadvertent reveal via court filing
Text Message shows Roger Stone Talking to a DEAD MAN...
Text messages show Roger Stone and friend discussing WikiLeaks plans

181114-roger-stone-randy-credico-chat-8-se-624p_33a6946ed53920e3fe6f1964f3ef939d.fit-760w.png

Credico turned out to be wrong on one count — nothing incriminating about Clinton came out that Wednesday. But two days later, on Oct. 7, WikiLeaks released its first dump of emails stolen from Podesta, altering the trajectory of the 2016 presidential election.

Stone, a confidante of then-candidate Donald Trump and notorious political trickster, has denied any collusion with WikiLeaks.

But the text messages provided by Stone to NBC News show that Credico appeared to be providing regular updates to Stone on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's plans in the days before the hacked emails were released. In the texts, Credico told Stone he had insights into Assange's plans through a longtime friend, who was also Assange's lawyer, according to the text messages.
... holy shit...
 
And remember, Russia considered it a military operation. An act of war. All Trump supporting politicians are traitors. Period.
Would you mind stopping peddling that bullshit and actually read what Russia sent to the court handling the DNC case?
 
And remember, Russia considered it a military operation. An act of war. All Trump supporting politicians are traitors. Period.
Yeah, a few people in SB don't thing this will amount to anything... but forget that Bush wasn't being investigated for what amounts to high treason...

... if the US military and IC pull a coup (because, let's admit it, the GOP will rather burn everything down than get arrested at this point), then all I'm going to say is I told you so. This is probably the very limit of the US military and US IC's tolerance of bullshit.
 
Thanksgiving Prelude (lifted straight off of Spacebattles)
Given that it's going to be Thanksgiving holiday weekend for those of us in the US, news might be a bit slower, except for the workaholics.

Thing 1:

Texas businessman challenges acting AG's legality - Politico, November 15, 2018, 4:21 PM EST
Lawyers for former agricultural products executive Doug Haning quietly filed a motion Tuesday asking a federal court in St. Louis to rule that Whitaker's installation atop the Justice Department, made in the wake of Trump's ouster of Attorney General Jeff Sessions last week, was illegal.

In theory, such a legal challenge could be pursued by any defendant under federal prosecution. However, Haning's move may have added traction because of the unusual role the former attorney general has played in his case. Because of a recusal by the local federal prosecutor in the case — St. Louis-based U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen — the government's filings in Haning's case bear Sessions' name as ultimately responsible for the prosecution.

...

On Tuesday, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh fired what appears to be the first shot in that battle by seeking to have a judge declare that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and not Whitaker, is in fact the acting attorney general. Frosh brought the motion as part of a lawsuit the state filed in September, accusing Sessions of dereliction of duty for failing to defend parts of the Obamacare law.

...

However, a court filing earlier this year in another case involving a recusal of local federal prosecutors provides some insight into the process.

...

The memo specifically says that all future court pleadings in the case should include the name of the attorney general. It also says if the Kentucky team wants to use prosecutors from the West Virginia office previously handling the matter, such an arrangement would require "a detailed justification of the need" as well as approval from DOJ headquarters.
Legal loopholes ahoy?


Thing 2:

Graham: 'Too early to tell' if Whitaker good choice for attorney general - Politico, November 18, 2018, 11:47 AM EST
Sen. Lindsey Graham on Sunday cast doubt on whether he could support the confirmation of acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to lead the Justice Department if he were nominated for the post on a permanent basis.

...

"I have nothing against him," Graham said of Whitaker on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I don't know if he's the best choice."

Graham said Whitaker "said some things that would be probably problematic to be confirmed" but that he had a "very solid résumé" and had shown professionalism.

...

"He said that he's going to support the regular order process," Graham said.
Bull and Shite, Graham. Where's your GD spine, coward? This is like DeVos's "I support accountability" at her confirmation hearing.


Thing 3:

Trump Says He's Unlikely to Sit for Interview in Russia Investigation - New York Times, November 18, 2018, 1:57 PM EST
President Trump said in an interview aired Sunday that he most likely would not sit for an interview with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, asserting that "we've wasted enough time on this witch hunt and the answer is, probably, we're finished."

The president also claimed that he had no idea that his acting attorney general, Matthew G. Whitaker, viewed the Mueller investigation skeptically, despite reports that the two had multiple conversations about the inquiry over the past year.

...

Several news outlets have reported that Mr. Trump and Mr. Whitaker discussed the inquiry in the Oval Office while Mr. Whitaker served as the chief of staff to the attorney general, Jeff Sessions. The day after the midterm elections, Mr. Trump forced out Mr. Sessions, who had long endured the president's wrath over his recusal from the investigation.

When Mr. Wallace pointed out to Mr. Trump that Mr. Whitaker had predetermined that there was no collusion in his public commentary over the last two years, Mr. Trump said: "He's right. What do you do when a person's right? There is no collusion. He happened to be right. I mean, he said it. So if he said there is collusion, I'm supposed to be taking somebody that says there is?"
So how do you know that Whitaker's right, Cheatous?


Thing 4:

What the Watergate 'Road Map' Reveals about Improper Contact between the White House and the Justice Department - Lawfare, November 19, 2018, 10:13 AM EST
In a conversation between the president of the United States and senior Justice Department officials, the officials informed the president that two of his senior White House staff were under investigation. One of the officials later testified: "He said he couldn't believe it. You know, just these are fine upstanding guys. Just couldn't be, you know." He impressed on the president, "We are here to alert you. We think we've got something. We could be wrong, but we are telling you it's time for you to move to protect yourself and the presidency." And he urged the president to "get rid" of the staffers in question; the president responded, "'Yeah, and I don't think I should. I've got to think about this and that and a thousand other things.'"

This happened in 1973.

One of the aspects of the recently released Watergate "road map" and related documents that attracted our attention is the set of materials pertaining to interactions, direct and indirect, between President Richard M. Nixon and two senior Department of Justice officials. The interactions cited in the road map occurred during March and April 1973. During that period, the president and his subordinates at the White House had contacts with Attorney General Richard Kleindienst and Henry E. Petersen, who was assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Criminal Division and is the official quoted above regarding the interaction with President Nixon. From June 1972 to May 1973, Petersen supervised the Watergate investigation conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). President Nixon was in touch with him frequently about the investigation, his future career and other matters along the way.

...

Archibald Cox and another prosecutor interviewed Petersen regarding this interaction with President Nixon. Cox asked Petersen whether "the President [was] surprised when you said that Ehrlichman and Haldeman were implicated, so far as you could judge?" Petersen stated: "He said he couldn't believe it. You know, just these are fine upstanding guys. Just couldn't be, you know." Petersen explained that the investigators had not corroborated information regarding Haldeman and Ehrlichman, but, "We are here to alert you. We think we've got something. We could be wrong, but we are telling you it's time for you to move to protect yourself and the presidency." Petersen also said when he urged the president to "get rid" of Haldeman and Ehrlichman, President Nixon said, "Yeah, and I don't think I should. I've got to think about this and that and a thousand other things." Petersen then said, "Fine. My viewpoint is parochial. I think you ought to do it. We went around and around on that issue."
History seriously is rhyming here. Speaking of Nixon, Rachel Maddow hosted a MSNBC special called "Betrayal: The Plot That Won the White House" on how Nixon f**ked up the peace talks to end the Vietnam War prior to his election and Lyndon B. Johnson's term ending. Gives a whole new perspective of the ridiculous parallels between then and now, not just Watergate. (May need to find mirrored links to that special in the future.)


Thing 5:

Senate Democrats sue to block Whitaker from serving as acting AG - Politico, November 19, 2018, 11:49 AM EST, updated 2:26 PM EST
Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), all members of the Judiciary Committee, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Monday, claiming that Trump violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution by choosing Whitaker for a Cabinet-level position even though Whitaker has never been Senate confirmed for a position. The complaint seeks to block Whitaker from serving in the role, which includes overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

...

Monday's suit is the second legal challenge to the constitutionality of Whitaker's appointment, after the state of Maryland petitioned a federal judge last week to block Whitaker from serving on the same grounds.

"Installing Matthew Whitaker so flagrantly defies constitutional law that any viewer of School House Rock would recognize it. Americans prize a system of checks and balances, which President Trump's dictatorial appointment betrays," Blumenthal said, claiming that Trump skirted the issue of having Whitaker confirmed because "Whitaker would never pass the advice-and-consent test."
Phone calling time again, especially those of us with Senators in either Senate Judiciary and/or Senate Intel.


Thing 6:

Trump to give Mueller written answers by Thanksgiving - Politico, November 19, 2018, 2:02 PM EST
Trump's lawyers set an informal Thanksgiving deadline for the president to finalize his responses on topics surrounding the Russian hacking of the 2016 election, and he's almost ready to submit them, according to two sources familiar with the conversations.

The president's written answers — which carry the same legal burden for truthfulness as an in-person interview — are likely to be submitted as Trump settles into his Mar-a-Lago club in South Florida for the Thanksgiving holiday. Trump is scheduled to depart Washington, D.C., on Tuesday afternoon.

...

Trump told Fox News' Chris Wallace in an interview broadcast Sunday that he is unlikely to sit down for a face-to-face interview with Mueller.

"We gave very, very complete answers to a lot of questions that I shouldn't have even been asked, and I think that should solve the problem. I hope it solves the problem. If it doesn't, you know, I'll be told and we'll make a decision at that time. But probably this is the end," the president said.
ORLY?


Thing 7:

New Resource Page: Litigation Documents on the Appointment of Matthew Whitaker - Lawfare, November 19, 2018, 5:03 PM EST
As Lawfare readers have probably noticed, there has been a fair amount of controversy over Matthew Whitaker's designation as acting attorney general as of late. To keep track of it all, we at Lawfare have put together a resource page collecting all litigation documents regarding Whitaker's appointment, ranging from outright challenges to Whitaker's role as acting attorney general (Maryland v. U.S., Blumenthal v. Whitaker, and Michaels v. Whitaker) to a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has requested supplementary briefing on the matter (In re Grand Jury Investigation). We'll be keeping the page updated as the litigation moves forward.
Great place for those of us who can wrap our heads around the legalese on the practically cases of "v. Whitaker" and such.


Thing 8:

Mueller says powers still intact amid DOJ overhaul - Politico, November 19, 2018, 5:47 PM EST
Michael Dreeben, the deputy solicitor general who represents Mueller, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker taking charge of the Russia probe "neither alters the special counsel's authority to represent the United States nor raises any jurisdictional issue."

...

"The Special Counsel continues to exercise the same authority, and the jurisdiction of the district court and this Court is intact," Dreeben added in his 17-page legal brief.

Dreeben's explanation of the new DOJ arrangement came in response to an order from the federal appellate court requesting last-minute briefs in a case brought by a former aide to Roger Stone designed to knock Mueller from his job on legal and constitutional grounds.

...

To date, challenges against Mueller's authority have gone nowhere. The federal judges presiding over separate criminal cases against Paul Manafort issued rulings rejecting the former Trump campaign chairman's bid to toss out the charges by claiming Mueller's appointment was flawed.

And a federal judge appointed by Trump rejected an attempt by a Russian company challenging Mueller's jurisdiction after the firm was charged in connection with a Kremlin-linked online troll farm accused of targeting the 2016 U.S. election.
Now, the thing to keep in mind is that Whitaker's "appointment" as Acting AG has no affect on this particular case of Andrew Miller's challenging Mueller's appointment at the Court of Appeals for District of Columbia, Case No. 18-3052. We don't know yet if Whitaker will have an effect on the other cases, like Manafort, Gates, Flynn, and lord knows the other sealed cases.



Thing 9:

Prosecuting Wikileaks, Protecting Press Freedoms: Drawing the Line at Knowing Collaboration with a Foreign Intelligence Agency - Just Security, November 19, 2018
The inadvertent disclosure of the likely existence of a sealed indictment against Julian Assange raises the question of what the constitutional implications of such an indictment might be. Only an indictment narrowly focused on knowing collaboration with a foreign intelligence agency, if in fact the evidence supports such a finding, would avoid the broad threat that such a prosecution would otherwise pose to First Amendment rights and press freedoms.

...

What's more, the long history of rabid partisan presses in the nineteenth century, and the rise of frankly partisan media in the present media environment, mean that we cannot anchor the limits of press freedom in the organizational habits and institutional forms of professional journalism of the few decades between World War I and the rise of Fox News. The explosion of online journalism, by individuals and small teams, relying on diverse motivations—commercial, political, or social—makes any legal regime that enables prosecutors to finely thread needles and identify targets for prosecution because they are "not really media" inadequate to the times and the models that pervade contemporary media. The touchstone used in the journalists' privilege cases from the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits was intent and function at the time of gathering information, not the mode of dissemination. As long as there is intent to gather information for public dissemination, the actor is acting as the role of the press.

...

So if Wikileaks knew and coordinated in advance around the DNC hacking and leaking, the case would be within the zone that most commentators see as prosecutable. But I doubt that the GRU needed much encouragement or help from Wikileaks before the hack or while continuing to hack. Assuming prosecutors cannot prove such prior active collaboration, under the normal interpretation of Bartnicki, that would be the end of the story. The only question that remains in my mind is whether Wikileaks can be prosecuted if it knowingly coordinated afterthe hack, knowing specifically that the source was a foreign intelligence agency, beyond what would be appropriate in charging a newspaper that coordinated with a source who had committed a crime to meet in secret, or help arrange a meeting (say, renting a hotel room). Again, the reason for differentiating domestic leakers and whistleblowers from foreign intelligence agencies is that the likely motivations and risks they undertake suggest that the public interest in the disclosures of the former are likely high, whereas the public interest in the latter case will more commonly be that they not reach the public sphere. Or at least we have no systematic reason to think that such disclosures will be aimed toward abuses of power.
A ton of legal hypotheticals in this one on the power of the press and those claiming to be "journalists" trying to hide behind the US's First Amendment.


Which reminds me, Flynn has a sentencing hearing scheduled on December 18 with the District Court of District Columbia before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, Case #17-cr-0232 (or "17-cr-00232" if going by Document Cloud, and "1:17-cr-00232-RC"). November 20 is apparently for both teams to file their pre-trial hearing statements, so who knows what'll come out.
 
Am I the only person that doesn't care about active measures? so many people in here are clamoring for a war against Russia are you out of your f****** minds?
Sorry about not replying to this but simply allowing this to go completely unchallenged sets a very dangerous precedent in geopolitics. Most treaties, international laws, and the like rely on precedent for it's foundation. If any precedent is overturned, then that'll cause problems.
 
Stone Associate Jerome Corsi entered plea negotiations with Mueller, according to insider
Stone associate Jerome Corsi is in plea negotiations with special counsel, according to a person with knowledge of the talks (Washington Post)

Former Info Wars bureau chief and right wing media figure Jerome Corsi is in the process of working out a plea agreement with Mueller. We don't know at this time what the plea deal will involve, but earlier comments hinted at possible charges of perjury against Corsi. Given that Mueller's team doesn't leak, I would presume this information is coming from Corsi's side of the equation. The net appears to be closing around Stone. If Corsi does end up making a guilty plea, he would end up being the first American charged in connection to the leak of the hacked Democratic documents.
 
Sorry about not replying to this but simply allowing this to go completely unchallenged sets a very dangerous precedent in geopolitics. Most treaties, international laws, and the like rely on precedent for it's foundation. If any precedent is overturned, then that'll cause problems.
To me they're upholding the precedent. America has been influencing other countries elections for decades. We've set the precedent. And yes I do get concerned when people say we should be ramping up hostilities against a nuclear power. There's some decisions that are too stupid.
 
Back
Top Bottom