U.S. charges Russians with 2016 U.S. election tampering to boost Trump

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Sorry, but Thaibeachlovers made it perfectly clear in the quote at the top of your above post that he was referring to the current indictments. You really are getting yourself into a muddle here.

Worth reposting what I ACTUALLY said.

 

21 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given it's been over a year, and there has been ZERO evidence that anyone on Trump's team colluded with the Russians to interfere with the elections, and Rosenstein specifically said NO AMERICAN was involved in the current indictments,

 

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, sirineou said:

No My friend,  Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's statement that you quotes pertains to the indictments and not Mueller's entire investigation.

So Mueller has not made any allegations of collusion in these indictments . it does not mean he won't in others.

He is not the attorney general, that would be Sessions, as to the rest ( it does not mean he won't in others ) strikes me as wishin' and hopin'. 

Have a nice day.

[Srikcir]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He is not the attorney general, that would be Sessions, as to the rest ( it does not mean he won't in others ) strikes me as wishin' and hopin'. 

Have a nice day.

Rosenstein is Acting Attorney General as Sessions recused himself as AG related to the Russian investigation. That is why Trump can't order Sessions to fire Mueller but must go through Rosenstein.

[Srikcir]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Rosenstein specifically said NO AMERICAN was involved in the current indictments

There is at least one American Richard Pinedo who was indicted by Mueller and has already plead guilty. http://www.newsweek.com/who-richard-pinedo-mueller-defendant-guilty-809783

Mueller indicted a total of 16 individuals - 13 Russians, 1 American and 2 unidentified persons (Americans?).

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, sirineou said:

I dont have the time to read seven pages of responses nor do I have the inclination.

I was not responding to the whole thread, I as responding to what I understood to be an assertion that Rosenstein in his announcement said that there were no allegations of americans involved.

  If I misunderstood please correct me. 

 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-indictment-2016-elections-rod-rosenstein-announcement-today-2018-02-16/

There's no allegation that any American was knowingly involved in the conspiracy, Rosenstein said.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-indictment-2016-elections-rod-rosenstein-announcement-today-2018-02-16/

There's no allegation that any American was knowingly involved in the conspiracy, Rosenstein said.

 

 

Not yet... Stay tuned...

 

These kinds of cases are like getting thru the layers of an onion -- starting on the outside, and slowly working your way to the core...

 

Will Mueller and Co. be able to gather enough proof and evidence to allege who was at the core of all this, let's wait and see.

 

I believe, there are two main legal issues that could get very senior government officials into trouble here:

 

1. conspiring with foreign entities/individuals to influence/tamper with the Presidential Election

and/or

2. conspiracy to obstruct justice, i.e., trying to obstruct the investigation into the potential election tampering, including the President's firing of the FBI director.

 

Edited February 18, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[thaibeachlovers]

27 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Not yet... Stay tuned...

 

These kinds of cases are like getting thru the layers of an onion -- starting on the outside, and slowly working your way to the core...

 

Will Mueller and Co. be able to gather enough proof and evidence to allege who was at the core of all this, let's wait and see.

 

I believe, there are two main legal issues that could get very senior government officials into trouble here:

 

1. conspiring with foreign entities/individuals to influence/tamper with the Presidential Election

and/or

2. conspiracy to obstruct justice, i.e., trying to obstruct the investigation into the potential election tampering, including the President's firing of the FBI director.

 

They already know who was at the "core" of all this. The Russians, who planned this from 2014, before Trump even announced his bid.

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Dear, oh dear, oh dear. What Rosenstein actually said was that no American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. Sure, he didn't use the word 'collusion'. But even an idiot can see that 'collusion' and 'knowing participation' (sorry, 'participant' - don't want you correcting me ) in this context mean exactly the same thing.

 

I did warn that word games and hair-splitting would be the way forward for some in this debate.

Dear, oh dear, oh dear.  thaibeachlovers replied to a post of mine that reminded him of Don Jr's blatant attempt at collusion by posting "Rosenstein has gone on record as saying NO AMERICAN took part knowingly as part of a "collusion" .

 

In the article this thread is based on Rosenstein doesn't say "collusion", "colluded", or any other "collude" based term.  The article clearly states "The indictment is silent on the question of whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin, which Mueller is investigating."  Yet you still insist thaibeachlover's claim accurately represents the information in the article and is in no way an attempt to misrepresent facts.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Don't bother. I have no intention of falling for that trap. I could say Rosenstein said something was white and the usual suspects would claim he actually said black.

They must be getting desperate as with every new revelation it is becoming apparent that there is no there there on the collusion claim and it is all clutching at any straw, no matter how irrelevant, to try and prove something, anything in the hope he'll just give up and go away.

 

What you said, in response to a reminder about Don Jr's obvious attempt at collusion, was "Rosenstein has gone on record as saying NO AMERICAN took part knowingly as part of a "collusion" .

 

If Rosenstein did not state that in this article.  This article specifically states "The indictment is silent on the question of whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin, which Mueller is investigating."  

 

If your claim about Rosestein's on-the-record claim is from another source, you should provide that source.  Otherwise you are posting false information.

[heybruce]

 

22 hours ago, heybruce said:

Did you forget the email to Don Jr promising compromising information on Hillary Clinton as part of the Russian government support for Trump?  The one to which Don Jr responded "I love it!"?    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-russia-email-clinton.html

 

The investigation is ongoing.  Wait for the results.

 

Edit:  Trump's refusal to take any actions to prevent future Russian interference is at best dereliction of duty, at worst complicity in the crime.

 

21 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Rosenstein has gone on record as saying NO AMERICAN took part knowingly as part of a "collusion".

It is the FBI's job to take actions "to prevent future Russian interference" and the person that would order that would be Rosenstein, as Sessions has recused himself on matter Russian. Trump can't interfere with FBI operations.

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Worth reposting what I ACTUALLY said.

 

Given it's been over a year, and there has been ZERO evidence that anyone on Trump's team colluded with the Russians to interfere with the elections, and Rosenstein specifically said NO AMERICAN was involved in the current indictments,

 

Worth reposting what you ACTUALLY posted, in post 55, in reply to my reminder about Don Jr's attempted collusion:

" Rosenstein has gone on record as saying NO AMERICAN took part knowingly as part of a "collusion". "

 

As I pointed out earlier, you are posting out of context information in a blatant attempt to mislead.

[heybruce]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They already know who was at the "core" of all this. The Russians, who planned this from 2014, before Trump even announced his bid.

Yes, and since the FBI can't go into Russia and arrest people, the situation requires a political response to ensure the integrity of future elections.  Since defending the nation is the job of the Commander in Chief, Trump should take the lead on this response.

 

What do you think Trump will do?

 

Edit:  Before anyone replies/diverts with "What did Obama do?", go back and read post 35.

Edited February 18, 2018 by heybruce

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They already know who was at the "core" of all this. The Russians, who planned this from 2014, before Trump even announced his bid.

 

You obviously have no way of knowing what Mueller and Co. either believe or think they can prove legally.

 

You may believe the Russians were dancing alone. But there's plenty of at least circumstantial evidence to suggest they in fact had a willing U.S. dance partner.

[Jingthing]

"trump" is not only vulnerable from potential collusion charges. Nobody is saying as yet that there is proof that "trump" himself has colluded with the Russians in his campaign in any way. The investigation is not over. Wait and see. He may indeed ultimately really be cleared of that suspicion as he claims he already has, but the FACTS say nope he has not.

 

 But there is an awful hot mess of potential criminality in "trump's" long financial association with Russian oligarchs / mafia as far as money laundering. The Mueller investigation, like it or not, is not narrowly restricted in what it can look at. Personally, I would bet the house there is serious criminality in "trump's" financial history in relation to criminal Russians. If that's not impeachable, what planet are y'all from? 

 

Of course such a con man, sexual predator sleazeball, likely money launderer should have never been elected in the first place. But that happened. So here we are. 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Jingthing

[sirineou]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He is not the attorney general, that would be Sessions, as to the rest ( it does not mean he won't in others ) strikes me as wishin' and hopin'. 

Have a nice day.

 Of what significance to the subject is it that he is not the AG? I am well aware who the AG is.

It is neither wishing , I don't wish for out president to commit treason.

Nor is it hopin' . given the scope of the investigation and the opinion of many learned experts on the subject, it is an observation.

But I will have a nice day, thank  you. 

[sirineou]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-indictment-2016-elections-rod-rosenstein-announcement-today-2018-02-16/

There's no allegation that any American was knowingly involved in the conspiracy, Rosenstein said.

 

 I don't know why Rosenstein felt that he had to tell as that "There's no allegation that any American was knowingly involved in the conspiracy,   " in this indictment ( a caveat you conveniently forgot to include) , we can read the indictment and we can tell what is in it.

But I suspect why he did it, To give cover and support to the narrative the president and people like you are trying to promote.

 But I know what Rosestein did not say. He did not say that there will be no more indictments or If there are what will be in them..

But realise this, The release of these indictments at this time. and the fact that Mueller did not do it himself,  was a  "Check" move on this Chess game. He Checked Trump's "I will fire you" move.

Now if Trump fires him he will lose his Queen and perhaps put himself in a " Checkmate"

situation.

 

 

Edited February 18, 2018 by sirineou

[sirineou]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-indictment-2016-elections-rod-rosenstein-announcement-today-2018-02-16/

There's no allegation that any American was knowingly involved in the conspiracy, Rosenstein said.

 

 by the way you are quoting what you and the president wish he had said and not what he actualy said.

Here is the quote from th transcript 

" There’s no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge,  '

The operative word being "in this indictment"

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/17020872/rosenstein-russia-indictments-transcript

[mogandave]

I think it fair to say that if tRump is exonerated it will just prove Muller has been on his payroll all along.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[selftaopath]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

 I don't know why Rosenstein felt that he had to tell as that "There's no allegation that any American was knowingly involved in the conspiracy,   " in this indictment ( a caveat you conveniently forgot to include) , we can read the indictment and we can tell what is in it.

But I suspect why he did it, To give cover and support to the narrative the president and people like you are trying to promote.

 But I know what Rosestein did not say. He did not say that there will be no more indictments or If there are what will be in them..

But realise this, The release of these indictments at this time. and the fact that Mueller did not do it himself,  was a  "Check" move on this Chess game. He Checked Trump's "I will fire you" move.

Now if Trump fires him he will lose his Queen and perhaps put himself in a " Checkmate"

situation.

 

 

I started watching a candid and fascinating discussion and wanted to share it. The currently temporary inhabitant in the WH is going to have quite a few legal issues coming his way. Hope they arrive soon. 

 

[sirineou]

21 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I think it fair to say that if tRump is exonerated it will just prove Muller has been on his payroll all along.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 As much as I dislike Trump I must say That,  Not necessarily. .

It might be that Trump actually did not collude and really is the rube many of us suspect he is.  Or as in the case of Nixon not being prosecuted  after his resignation, that in order for the country to move forward the better part of valour and prudent thing would be to let sleeping dogs lay. 

Edited February 18, 2018 by sirineou

[mogandave]

 As much as I dislike Trump I must say That,  Not necessarily. .
It might be that Trump actually did not collude and really is the rube many of us suspect he is.  Or as in the case of Nixon not being persecuted after his resignation, that in order for the country to move forward the better part of valour and prudent thing would be to let sleeping dogs lay. 

Did you mean to say prosecuted?

[riclag]

18 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I think it fair to say that if tRump is exonerated it will just prove Muller has been on his payroll all along.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Moses said on to  Pharaoh,Surely you will let my people go.Liberals just can't bring themselves to admit that they lost! 

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 As much as I dislike Trump I must say That,  Not necessarily. .

It might be that Trump actually did not collude and really is the rube many of us suspect he is.  Or as in the case of Nixon not being persecuted after his resignation, that in order for the country to move forward the better part of valour and prudent thing would be to let sleeping dogs lay. 

As much as I dislike using the word "smart" and the name "Trump" in the same sentence, it is possible that Trump was smart enough to not get directly involved in collusion with Russia.  However I think it is very likely that Trump is a sufficiently arrogant micro-manager to have been involved in covering up the collusion of family and friends, and will continue to be involved.  That would not be as satisfying as uncovering the money-laundering, tax evasion, and corrupt conflict of interest deals with Russia and other countries that are certain to exist, but it would be good enough to get him impeached, and a lot easier to prove.

 

It wasn't the break-in that got Nixon, it was the cover-up.

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Did you mean to say prosecuted?

 

 Yes I did.

Still resist waring my reading glasses, but I Am afraid It is getting time to accept the inevitable.

thank you for that heads up. went back and edited ,

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

As much as I dislike using the word "smart" and the name "Trump" in the same sentence, it is possible that Trump was smart enough to not get directly involved in collusion with Russia.  However I think it is very likely that Trump is a sufficiently arrogant micro-manager to have been involved in covering up the collusion of family and friends, and will continue to be involved.  That would not be as satisfying as uncovering the money-laundering, tax evasion, and corrupt conflict of interest deals with Russia and other countries that are certain to exist, but it would be good enough to get him impeached, and a lot easier to prove.

 

It wasn't the break-in that got Nixon, it was the cover-up.

 Yes indeed 

They have already started to lay the plausible deniability  scenario, where some of the talking points that everyone used during the braking of the Trump towers meeting story was that " This was a very disorganised campaign" 

[heybruce]

22 minutes ago, riclag said:

Moses said on to  Pharaoh,Surely you will let my people go.Liberals just can't bring themselves to admit that they lost! 

We accept that Trump won.  That doesn't mean we have to accept illegal activity during the campaign, a cover-up of crimes, law-breaking incompetents in the administration, and dangerously bad leadership from the White House.

 

Mitch McConnell said that it was the goal of the Republicans to make Obama a one term president.  If adequate evidence can be found, it will be the goal of intelligent patriots to make Trump a less than one term president.

Edited February 18, 2018 by heybruce

[Khun Han]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Dear, oh dear, oh dear.  thaibeachlovers replied to a post of mine that reminded him of Don Jr's blatant attempt at collusion by posting "Rosenstein has gone on record as saying NO AMERICAN took part knowingly as part of a "collusion" .

 

In the article this thread is based on Rosenstein doesn't say "collusion", "colluded", or any other "collude" based term.  The article clearly states "The indictment is silent on the question of whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin, which Mueller is investigating."  Yet you still insist thaibeachlover's claim accurately represents the information in the article and is in no way an attempt to misrepresent facts.

Thaibeachlovers' claim does accurately represent the information in the article. Him using the word 'collusion' doesn't make it any less accurate.

I have pointed out the errors in your assertion many times. Up to you if you want to keep repeating them. If i were in your shoes, I'd just admit my mistake and move on.

[Air Smiles]

Like the US never tampered with the election processes of another country.

 

And, Israel never tampers with US elections or government policies.

 

Only Russia...

 

 

[riclag]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

We accept that Trump won.  That doesn't mean we have to accept illegal activity during the campaign, a cover-up of crimes, law-breaking incompetents in the administration, and dangerously bad leadership from the White House.

Well  your one of the few that accept Mr. Trump as the POTUS.The only suspicion of illegal acts  during the campaign was with the Dems,DOJ and FBI(opposition research paper bought by the DEMs then used as unsubstantiated facts to bring down a candidate and President .Oh and bad leadership can happen in every WH .

You and I have been down this road before.Your hatred for Mr. Trump is tantamount to the facts on hand .Shoe on the other foot for a moment,If Trump had his DOJ and FBI do the same to Clinton    

[CGW]

On 2/17/2018 at 9:24 AM, selftaopath said:

There's a question being asked: (journalist interviewed on MSNBC hrs ago) if Trump welcomed Russia's interference is he a traitor? Remember his plea to Wikileaks/Russia hackers?

 

Also there are some U.S. Representatives that openly state this is/was an act of war by Russia. I feel it certainly is a 21st century act of war; hope America responds appropriately. That probably requires a Democrat party majority in Congress and maybe another WH occupant. 

An act of war? yet America maintains the right to interfere in any election it desires as they "hold the moral high ground" make up the rules as you go along.

Guess Soros will be the next thrown in jail as how many elections has he interfered in?

[Jingthing]

An act of war? yet America maintains the right to interfere in any election it desires as they "hold the moral high ground" make up the rules as you go along.

Guess Soros will be the next thrown in jail as how many elections has he interfered in?

This isn't about US influence In foreign elections. Other nations are free to see that as a hostile action. What Russia did in the US election and is still doing is defy a hostile action.

 

 

Bringing up Soros is just baiting.

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app