12 Russian Military Officers Indicted

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:15 pm

The Mueller investigation has brought a further 12 indictments against 12 Russian military officers.

Robert Mueller is investigating the Russian interference in the 2016 election, and whether there was collusion with the Trump campaign, and also whether Trump or his associates worked to obstruct justice.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:16 pm

https://www.justice.gov/live" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:25 pm

Ah the popcorn eater again.....here we go ( yet ) again.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:27 pm

I get that its not everybody's cup of tea randomclaret, but its is undeniably fascinating, especially the reactions of those who have spent a lot of time saying there is no story to this.

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:31 pm

Trump is a ****. But yeah, there is a bit of 'this is huge' fatigue setting in about these revelations now. It might get to court one day, but probably not and almost certainly not before his 4 years is up.

gandhisflipflop · Post by **gandhisflipflop** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:35 pm

Im starting to think that you lot would be better off ******* this forum off and joining a politics forum.

NRC · Post by **NRC** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:40 pm

the thinking here, believe it or not, has Sean Hannity as a non-appointed Presidential Advisor and confidant. Trump talks to him daily. It is alleged that Hannity has advised WHEN to fire Mueller. That moment is at or within a couple of days of Mueller publishing his report. That way it can be claimed Trump has waited and reacted to the fact of the publication - that it was a witch-hunt

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:41 pm

Again, I'm struggling here

What would a thread title suggesting "12 Russian Military officers indicted" suggest this thread might be about?

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:54 pm

Won't it just be easier to have one thread titled Trump and just put it all on there?

We could do the same with Brexit stuff.

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:58 pm

Looking forward to tonights friendly as an antidote to this relentless garbage on here

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:59 pm

With all the mobile phone footage going around about stuff like this, you wouldn't think it would be that hard for someone to live stream the match

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:41 pm

NottsClaret wrote:Trump is a ****. But yeah, there is a bit of 'this is huge' fatigue setting in about these revelations now. It might get to court one day, but probably not and almost certainly not before his 4 years is up.

That's the problem with profit seeking 24 hour news, everything gets sensationalised. But as long as you can cut through the **** to see what really is sensational then it's not a problem (on an individual basis).

I posted this about 1 minute after he announced it so it isn't as if I'm responding to a sensationalised headline.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:42 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Again, I'm struggling here

What would a thread title suggesting "12 Russian Military officers indicted" suggest this thread might be about?

Corrie.

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:47 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:https://www.justice.gov/live

It's a pity you have nothing better to do but post commu ist propaganda. Give it a rest.

Lord Beamish · Post by **Lord Beamish** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:51 pm

I’ll be really interested when that footage that Putin has of that Prostitute(allegedly) p1ssing on Trump’s face gets leaked(pun intended) out. Or when Trump gets poisoned with Polonium.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:59 pm

Stayingup wrote:It's a pity you have nothing better to do but post commu ist propaganda. Give it a rest.

Communist propaganda

Could be worse. He could be posting instructions to others on what to and what not to post.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:59 pm

Lord Beamish wrote:I’ll be really interested when that footage that Putin has of that Prostitute(allegedly) p1ssing on Trump’s face gets leaked(pun intended) out. Or when Trump gets poisoned with Polonium.

I doubt that exists.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:17 pm

Stayingup wrote:It's a pity you have nothing better to do but post commu ist propaganda. Give it a rest.

It's a .gov address that appears to go to the Dept of Justice website. I didn't watch the entire video but it seems to be some US official making an announcement.

Has the DOJ been taken over by Communists? Or was the video faked by Commie Propagandists?

Or did you just quote the wrong post by mistake?

I'm genuinely confused.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:21 pm

It think he's trolling

Course, he might actually believe that a link to an actual US Government department announcement is communist propaganda.

If that is the case, then he makes Blue Lab look like a serious and well researched poster

Dark Cloud · Post by **Dark Cloud** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:24 pm

I don't normally get involved or comment on "political" threads, but something strikes me here, if I may: The majority of people in a free vote voted for Brexit and so that's what's happening. The majority of US citizens voted for Trump in a free vote. So he's the president. (Until they vote otherwise) I'd suggest that's democracy tbh.

bluelabrador16 · Post by **bluelabrador16** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:59 pm

Recommended...by Jeff Wells (Rigorous Intuition)

David Talbot

"One of the most dismaying developments of the Trump reign is how desperate Democrats and liberals are rushing to embrace neocon ideologues (those lovely people who brought us the Iraq War), Cold War II hawks, and other national security hardliners. Leading Democrats -- and liberal media outlets like the NYT, WashPost and MSNBC -- see this permanent war lobby as an ally against Trump's growing authoritarianism. But this is the same crowd who set the stage for Trump's triumph -- by plunging America into permanent war (which has taken a disproportionate toll on families in Red states), merging its politics with Wall Street, selling out workers through trade deals, and withdrawing their families into elite bubbles where they only socialize with other elites[/b].

This devil's pact between liberals and neocons was driven home for me (yet again) last night when Rachel Maddow conducted a fawning in-studio interview with Victoria Nuland, a former State Department official for East European affairs (the Cold War front lines), who has used her diplomatic posts to undiplomatically provoke Russia and do everything she can to ratchet up military tensions. Nuland is the queen in a neocon monarchy, married to the infamous neocon ideologue Robert Kagan, one of the leading crusaders for the Iraq War...and further bloody crusades in the Middle East.

This family should be high on progressives' enemy list. But because Trump decided not to keep them in the Washington power fold, they have now declared war on his presidency -- and have won themselves permanent gigs on MSNBC and newspaper op-ed pages.

Progressives -- including the left wing of the Democratic Party -- need to urgently develop a foreign policy that rejects both neocon, Cold War II ideology (with its promise of endless blood and misery), as well as the Trump oligarchy and its alliance with authoritarian regimes in Russia and other countries. We have to criticize Putin's subversion of democracies(???) without starting World War III. We must break not only from Trump, but from the disastrous neocon mystique that held sway over not just George W. Bush but Hillary Clinton (Nuland and Kagan were both advisors to her campaign).

And just because Trump is disrupting NATO this week, that doesn't mean we should rush to defend the alliance's provocative, militaristic policies.

Progressives need our own policies on war and peace, not ideas borrowed from the disastrous annals of past administrations. And we need to find our own media outlets to begin to change the national dialogue before the U.S. launches yet another war.

For more on the Nuland-Kagan neocon cabal, read the late Robert Parry's excellent article: https://consortiumnews.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;…/the-kagans-are-back-wars-to-f…/

???......Disagree.....Blue

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:21 pm

Dark Cloud wrote:I don't normally get involved or comment on "political" threads, but something strikes me here, if I may: The majority of people in a free vote voted for Brexit and so that's what's happening. The majority of US citizens voted for Trump in a free vote. So he's the president. (Until they vote otherwise) I'd suggest that's democracy tbh.

Demonstrably, objectively untrue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... tion,_2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Trump: 62,984,828
Clinton: 65,853,514

Clinton won by 2,868,686 votes. The Electoral College awarded the presidency to Trump.

This isn't a post intended to re-run the election but rather one to clarify the facts, because the premise of your argument - that Trump is who the people voted for - is flawed.

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:34 pm

Dark Cloud wrote:I don't normally get involved or comment on "political" threads, but something strikes me here, if I may: The majority of people in a free vote voted for Brexit and so that's what's happening. The majority of US citizens voted for Trump in a free vote. So he's the president. (Until they vote otherwise) I'd suggest that's democracy tbh.

The reality is that the Democrats need to find a viable alternative to Trump,if they do not it is feasible he will be re-elected,clearly many people in America are disgruntled with the political establishment,and felt the only way to express this was to elect Donald Trump.

Until the politicians address the valid grievances these voters have,cost of living,opportunities for the poorest to get decent education,jobs that are valued,then Trump will hold onto his base,will that be enough for a second term i don't know,but i wouldn't rule it out,if the Democrats had nominated Bernie Sanders he may well have negated many of Trump's selling points but in a more positive fashion.

I obviously don't qualify to vote in US elections,but the choice between Clinton and Trump,may have left me abstaining or voting for a minor party.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:56 pm

Lord Beamish wrote:... Or when Trump gets poisoned with Polonium.

What? With a face like that, I thought that had already happened!

NRC · Post by **NRC** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:00 pm

per my earlier post re Sean Hannity, what needs to be understood is that Trump's voting base gets ALL its news from Fox news. Fox News, in turn, gets insights, commentary, and a day-to-day working relationship with the President. In effect Trump acts in a lead editorial role for Fox News. In turn Fox News puts out the narrative.

Fox News, in this concerning relationship, acts in the form of being State media - no different from State-run Russian television

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:13 pm

Trump also gets his a good amount of hid talking points from Fox News.

Socrates · Post by **Socrates** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:22 pm

For those on Twitter, there’s a chap on there called Seth Abramson who is a an attorney and journalist.

He’s done a lengthy breakdown of these indictments in the last few hours. Reading what he says there is absolutely no doubt there was collusion between the Trump campaign and these Russians.

In the last hour Republicans have announced they want to impeach Rosenstein, who announced these indictments. I expect it’s now a race against time to install Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and sacking Rosenstein to sack Mueller.

America is right, right on the precipice now. If Republicans don’t act and Trump can get these changes made before November it could have sizeable implications for democracy in America and change the geopolitical landscape for a generation.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:36 pm

Socrates wrote:For those on Twitter, there’s a chap on there called Seth Abramson who is a an attorney and journalist.

He’s done a lengthy breakdown of these indictments in the last few hours. Reading what he says there is absolutely no doubt there was collusion between the Trump campaign and these Russians.

In the last hour Republicans have announced they want to impeach Rosenstein, who announced these indictments. I expect it’s now a race against time to install Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and sacking Rosenstein to sack Mueller.

America is right, right on the precipice now. If Republicans don’t act and Trump can get these changes made before November it could have sizeable implications for democracy in America and change the geopolitical landscape for a generation.

Yep. It's a fascinating read.
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status ... 2277397504" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit: wrong breakdown. lol
Here it is: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1017 ... 35072.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:47 pm

Russian hackers apparently made their first attempt to breach 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's private emails around the same time that then-candidate Donald Trump publicly called on Russia to recover the missing emails from her private server...
- The Hill
http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu ... p-publicly" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Everyone was like "oh, he's only joking". But was he? And if Russia took his joke seriously then does it matter? I'd imaging incitement to commit espionage against your own country is kind of a crime. No? Can you imagine if Hillary did that and she was in office right now? Oh lordy.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:57 pm

For the lazy, but interested... from here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1017 ... 35072.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1/ The indictment names 12 names, some of which we may have come across before in the Russian investigation. All will now be researched by major media and independent digital journalists to see if they intersect with the Steele dossier or anyone connected to the Trump campaign.

2/ Count 1 is Conspiracy to Commit An Offense Against the US and lists the defendants and mentions *unindicted co-conspirators*, which of course leaves open the possibility that some of these were American—and connected to the Trump campaign—though the indictment does not say so.

3/ It says some of the unindicted co-conspirators are "known" to the grand jury and some are "unknown," so that suggests there are others who could be indicted or will be indicted for this conspiracy and, again, we do not know their nationalities yet.

4/ Trump will falsely say these indictments have nothing to do with him. Per usual, he's wrong—it's that we don't *know* if the grand jury has found those connections yet. They may well have. But we know his phrase "rigged witch hunt" is henceforth GRU propaganda—and he knows it.

5/ The fact that GRU began planning to release intel it netted from "monitoring" Democratic computers/employees in April 2016—at the conclusion of which month Trump publicly offered a "good deal" to Russia on sanctions at the Mayflower Hotel—means the effort started long before.

6/ The indictments confirm "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0" were GRU front operations, meaning top Trump aide Roger Stone was in communication with Russian intelligence (and praised them) during the presidential campaign. One wonders if Stone is one of the unindicted co-conspirators.

7/ The indictments confirm "Organization 1"—which is clearly WikiLeaks—acted as an agent of GRU, which means that Donald Trump Jr. was in contact with Russian agents (besides those at Trump Tower) during the presidential election and (like Stone) praised/encouraged their efforts.

8/ The indictments imply *both* the named conspirators *and* the unindicted co-conspirators "made false statements about [the] identities" of DCLeaks/Guccifer. Many will miss that if Stone/Don Jr. are found to have known these entities were GRU, they *are* the co-conspirators.

9/ Many of us—but yes, me quite loudly—have been saying that Trump Jr., Trump Sr., Stone, and others could be found to have "aided and abetted" the Russian conspiracy by deliberately "making false statements about the identities" of the criminals in public after they knew better.

10/ POTUS is actually in this respect in *more* danger than others—as his private briefings confirmed for him the Russians were involved in cyberattacking America as *late* as August 2016. Yet he continued misidentifying the attackers after that—which I've said could be criminal.

11/ The indictments lay out a command-and-control structure by which different GRU generals were in control of different facets of the attack on America—i.e., the attack was laid out, in all respects, as a military operation, which makes sense as it was a modern-warfare invasion.

12/ This detailed description of the command-and-control structure—establishing a military-style operation—will be critical in the coming months, as we learn that Trump campaign staff or even Trump himself were aware of this effort before, during or after the main Russian attack.

13/ I *cannot* stress this enough: every time Trump uses the phrase "rigged witch hunt" going forward he is knowingly misidentifying the perpetrators of a military-style cyber-invasion of America by Putin's Russia—in order to knowingly aid and abet Russian crimes against America.

14/ Moreover, there is evidence from Rosenstein that Trump was informed of these indictments *before today* and *nevertheless* used the phrase "rigged witch hunt" in an official presidential declaration to tens of millions of Americans (as the WH confirms his Twitter feed to be).

15/ It is fine for us to keep debating if Trump coordinated with Russia—by aiding and abetting by any of various means before, during or after the Russian attack on America—while in-campaign, but from this day on, any more "witch hunt" talk is OPEN AND PUBLIC AIDING AND ABETTING.

16/ The indictments underscore this fact by noting that part of the Russians' criminal conspiracy was "making false statements" about the identities of perpetrators. Aiding and Abetting statutes don't require Trump to know crimes were committed—only a "high likelihood" they were.

17/ Trump had in August '16—and has now—a "high likelihood" knowledge of who those who attacked America were/are, yet he has *continued* to attempt to taint the U.S. jury pool in public statements to tens of millions of people in an attempt to ensure these men don't meet justice.

18/ The indictments list many of the fake names these Russian military officers used in their spear-fishing efforts. This is a good place to note (again) that this many Russian military officers could never engage in a coordinated campaign of this sort without Putin's knowledge.

19/ What this means is Trump is about to meet with the mastermind of Russia's attack on us and has called that meeting "easy"—already offering up *concessions* to that mastermind without asking anything in return. He's also made preparations to have much of their talk be secret.

20/ Trump is having this secret chat with the mastermind of the Russian conspiracy against the U.S.—which conspiracy is now confirmed in public filings by DOJ—at a time when either he or agents of his or both may well be the unindicted co-conspirators in the Mueller indictments.

21/ If, in the opinion of Mueller's grand jury, any acts Trump and/or his agents have previously taken have aided or abetted the Russian conspiracy, the secrecy of the meeting coming up in Helsinki may well mark it as an "act in furtherance" of the conspiracy Trump is a party to.

22/ But this is speculation—we don't know, but will eventually learn, what role the grand jury thinks Trump and/or his associates did/didn't play in helping the Kremlin cover up this conspiracy or receive unilateral financial benefits (like an end to sanctions) in payment for it.

23/ The indictment makes clear the *latest* the attack started was March '16—right as it was clear Trump would be the nominee, and as new Trump hire and direct/indirect Putin agent Manafort began hiring the men (Page and Papadopoulos) who'd act as intermediaries with the Kremlin.

24/ No investigator would find it random that Trump's pro-Putin Campaign Manager started hiring Trump-Russia intermediaries right as the Kremlin was launching the cyberattack whose fruits it'd try to give to the Trump campaign as part of talks with those very same intermediaries.

25/ One of the spearphishing emails was sent to Clinton's campaign just 4 days after—in what looks like a planned encounter—Kremlin agent Joseph Mifusd met Trump agent George Papadopoulos in Italy as part of a campaign trip Trump had (based on what we know) sent Papadopoulos on.

26/ The day the Russians stole 50,000 emails from Clinton's Campaign Chairman was the day Trump announced George Papadopoulos as a member of his national security team. 10 days later Papadopoulos would—face to face with Trump at the TIHDC—tell Trump he was a Kremlin intermediary.

27/ So by the time Papadopoulos told Trump—in person—that he'd been cleared to negotiate Trump-Russia meetings by a Kremlin agent (Mifsud), the Russians already had the emails that Mifsud would discuss with Papadopoulos just a few days later. All these events are aligned in time.

28/ But understand this, too: per the indictments, the Russians began the main thrust of their attack *within two weeks* of pro-Putin foreign agent Paul Manafort coming aboard the campaign of Donald Trump. Criminal investigators *do not believe* in time-coincidences of this sort.

29/ Timeline: Manafort hired; Papadopoulos hired; Russian attack starts; Russia gets Clinton dirt; Russia opens negotiations via Papadopoulos (Papadopoulos tells Trump this); Trump offers Russia a "good deal" on sanctions at the Mayflower (with Kislyak in the front row as a VIP).

30/ The indictment says the second major Russian attack on Clinton occurred less than a week after Papadopoulos told Trump he was acting as a Russian intermediary and—per accounts of those at the meeting—Trump was engaged and interested. It appears that after the second attack...

31/ ...Trump made Papadopoulos part of the editing team of his Mayflower speech, at which he said he'd be good to Russia if Russia was good to "us" and offered Russia a "good deal" on sanctions. He had Richard Burt—an anti-sanctions Russian-pipeline advocate—co-write the speech.

32/ What I'm saying is that the timeline laid out in the indictments strongly suggests at least some of the unindicted co-conspirators are American.

33/ Now here comes a bombshell.

34/ The Kremlin DIRECTLY RESPONDED to Trump's public call to try to get Clinton's "missing" emails WITHIN HOURS of him making the request—WITHIN HOURS. Either Trump was coordinating OR he KNEW he had sufficient pull with the Russians that his words could have this sort of effect.

35/ How would Trump know he had this pull with the Kremlin? Because by this time EIGHT OR MORE of his top aides had had DIRECT contact with the Russians, during which contacts it was made CLEAR how much Russia wanted to help Trump's campaign. He knew what he was doing on July 27.

36/ But here's what really matters here: Mueller is firing across Trump's bow. He knows, we know, the *world* knows what Trump did on July 27—so to use the phrase "after hours" and "for the first time" would *seem* to be Mueller beginning to draw a direct Trump-Russia connection.

37/ And Mueller *also* notes that a *second* new, massive attack on Clinton *directly* followed Trump asking Russia for help. This is astounding news—and the major media better pick up on it immediately, because you can be certain Trump's criminal defense team will. And Congress.

38/ (IMPORTANT) Rosenstein said Trump *knew before today* that this was coming. What are the chances Trump's *stooges in Congress* also knew this was coming—and that the way they conducted themselves with Strzok yesterday was an attempt to blunt the blow from today's indictments?

39/ I'm not going to run through every aspect of the Russian op—this "talking indictment" offers a large number of details, which indictments do not always—except to say that the *earliest* recorded attack appears to have been on the very *day* that Papadopoulos met Mifsud. Wow.

40/ I have been saying for a year now that the two key events in the 2016 Trump-Russia story are the March 31, 2016 "TIHDC meeting" of Trump's NatSec team and the Mayflower Hotel speech on April 27, 2016. It now appears the BULK of the Russian op happened between those two dates.

(IT edit: Not part of the thread but who wants to bet that someone tries to mock me for posting this? My money's on randomclaret)

41/ Per the indictments the four major Russian pushes were these:

1. Right after Manafort's hire;
2. Between the TIHDC/Mayflower events;
3. Right around the June Trump Tower meeting;
4. Right after Trump publicly begs Russia for assistance.

The time-coincidences are astounding.

42/ *Please* remember what happened on March 31, 2016: Papadopoulos told Trump he was a Kremlin intermediary and Trump was *OK with it*. The 21 days after that contain the *bulk* of Russia's attack on the United States to assist Trump in winning the presidency. Not a coincidence.

43/ Many won't recognize April 19, 2016 as key beyond what we just learned—that's when the Kremlin created "DC Leaks." If I'm not mistaken, it's also the day that Paul Manafort took over the Trump campaign officially from Corey Lewandowski. These days are lining up in scary ways.

44/ UNBELIEVABLE how these dates align (I'm using the term "unbelievable" here literally, as in "it's not coincidental"):

April 19: "DCLeaks" created and Manafort becomes Campaign Manager
June 8: DCLeaks launches just 24 hours before Trump campaign-Kremlin meeting in Trump Tower

45/ I'm wondering now if DCLeaks was launched on June 8 so that Don Jr. could see it on June 9 (directed there by others, whether Russian or American) and see it as a sign of Russian "good faith" before meeting with Kremlin agent Natalia Veselnitskaya and a Russian intel officer.

46/ DCLeaks *was* the "Clinton dirt" Trump Jr. was promised. On June 9—the date Trump Jr. was promised dirt—Americans saw for the first time DCLeaks, which was created to provide the Trump campaign promised Clinton dirt. So what if there *was* a result to the Trump Tower meeting?

47/ The indictment gets crazy halfway through—in the sense of becoming very intense. It sounds like Roger Stone should be expecting an indictment at some point of Making False Statements, and members of the media may inadvertently have acted as a conduit for the Russian military.

48/ The indictment also confirms the criminal activity of WikiLeaks in a way that makes Trump's repeated consideration of a deal with Julian Assange positively *obscene* and perhaps—down the line—additional evidence of his attempts to coordinate with the Russians after-the-fact.

49/ Counts 2-9: Aggravated Identity Theft. Count 10: Conspiracy to Launder Money. Count 11: Conspiracy to Commit An Offense Against the U.S. Note that we have "Conspiracy" here and in count 1 because DOJ knows of "acts in furtherance" but may not know who did the underlying acts.

50/ The Russians stole 500,000 Americans' voter data. If you think they did *nothing* with that data—like delete registrations—I've some swampland in Florida to sell you at a great rate. It's now clear Russia *wanted* to *directly* tamper with the election. We'll see if they did.

CONCLUSION/ Please see the new thread below for continued coverage of the new Mueller indictments. I focus on how the revelations about DCLeaks *directly implicate* the president's son in possible federal Conspiracy charges relating to Russian "collusion."

----------- Aforementioned new thread...

(IMPORTANT) Trump and his allies have been saying for a year that the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting didn't matter because "nothing came of it." That's now proven false: Russia said it would give Trump Jr. Clinton "dirt" on June 9—and it launched "DCLeaks" for *that day* to do so.

2/ Had Donald Trump Jr. contacted the FBI; had he rejected the Kremlin's overture; had he told Goldstone (and then Kremlin agent Emin Agalarov) that the Trump campaign would be highly displeased if the Kremlin released stolen Clinton data—it's not clear DCLeaks would've happened.

3/ DCLeaks may well have happened when and as it did *precisely because* Trump Jr. told Kremlin agents Goldstone and Agalarov "I love it" when they offered the Trump campaign—on behalf of the Kremlin—"Clinton dirt."

I think there's a *very* good chance "I love it" was a *crime*.

4/ Understand this: the Kremlin asked for access to Trump's campaign (as it turned out, to discuss sanctions) in exchange for "Clinton dirt" Trump Jr. knew or should have known was obtained illegally, and Trump Jr. said yes—thereby inducing the publication of the DCLeaks website.

5/ We can no longer, with any confidence, say "nothing came from the June '16 Trump Tower meeting" or that Donald Trump Jr.'s acceptance of that meeting—knowing what he knew at the time he accepted the meeting—wasn't a criminal act that opens him up to federal Conspiracy charges.

6/ It's more important than ever before that we find out what was said during those two Trump Jr.-Agalarov phone calls in the 2 days before the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting. Trump Jr. lied about both phone calls. Why did he lie? What did Kremlin agent Agalarov tell/promise him?

7/ Today is also a day to remember House Republicans allowed Don Trump Jr. to avoid answering questions he didn't feel like answering before Congress, while *immediately* threatening FBI agent Peter Strzok with *Contempt* for following FBI counsel's guidance on certain questions.

Dark Cloud · Post by **Dark Cloud** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:59 pm

Spiral wrote:Demonstrably, objectively untrue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... tion,_2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Trump: 62,984,828
Clinton: 65,853,514

Clinton won by 2,868,686 votes. The Electoral College awarded the presidency to Trump.

This isn't a post intended to re-run the election but rather one to clarify the facts, because the premise of your argument - that Trump is who the people voted for - is flawed.

See there's a good reason why I don't normally comment on political threads.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:01 pm

Dark Cloud wrote:See there's a good reason why I don't normally comment on political threads.

It's OK to be wrong. Other people would be making excuses right now.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:02 pm

YEAH, WHAT ABOUT THE MILLIONS OF FAKE DEMOCRAT VOTES?

Dark Cloud · Post by **Dark Cloud** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:05 pm

He still won under the rules as they are even though, assuming what you're saying to be true, my assertion of a "majority" is flawed.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:06 pm

No doubt about that, but this is where the seriousness of the Russian collusion comes in.

Something like 3000 votes (can't remember at the moment) in each state would have swung the election.

Dark Cloud · Post by **Dark Cloud** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:10 pm

Ironically the system in this country also allows for a government which the majority of voters didn't choose much of the time.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:16 pm

Yup

But as long as Lab and the Cons keep winning all the elections that will never change

Dark Cloud · Post by **Dark Cloud** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:20 pm

I think every politician should be "independent" and the party system/fiasco scrapped! (BOTH sides of the Atlantic). Then it would be far more straightforward. That's what i think!

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:20 pm

Dark Cloud wrote:He still won under the rules as they are even though, assuming what you're saying to be true, my assertion of a "majority" is flawed.

This is true. The argument, in theory, for the Electoral College is that it prevents the electorate form electing to the Office of the Presidency any person profoundly unfit to hold the Office of the Presidency. Fat lot of good that did. Same thing happened with Al Gore in 2000, albeit with tighter numbers in both popular vote and electoral college.

ecc · Post by **ecc** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:30 pm

"If that is the case, then he makes Blue Lab look like a serious and well researched poster."

ecc · Post by **ecc** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:33 pm

Is Blue Lab Trawden Girl in disguise? Or her(his) alter ergo? Or just 51 cards short of a full pack?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 11:22 pm

Dark Cloud wrote:He still won under the rules as they are even though, assuming what you're saying to be true, my assertion of a "majority" is flawed.

It's not just the electoral college, and it's not just this one election. The Electoral college and the Senate is rigged in their favour (not their fault), and the House is rigged in their favour too (absolutely their fault).

It's pretty easy to prove too.

Not including special elections the senate is currently made up of 51 Republicans and 47 Democrats and 2 independents. Each elected senator serves a 6 year term which means aside from those appointed to the role by governors.

These figures i'm about to quote don't include the off-year special elections of 3 Democrat senators and 0 Republican senators during the last 3 senate election cycles (2016, 2014 and 2012) (sourced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... tes_Senate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

So for this you need to consider that these figures refer to the election of 51 Republican senators and 44 Democrat senators.

Total votes in 2012/2014/2016:

Democrats: 122,370,871
Republicans: 103,855,262

(this is the point of compiling the post i decided to really go to town on proving how ****** up the US senate is. So here's a screenshot of a spreadsheet)

Numbers in blue are how many more votes the Democrats got in that 6 year cycle, and in red how many more votes the GOP got in that cycle. And next to it is how many senators each party had after that cycle.

I've uploaded it to Google sheets if you wanna check my calcs
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 9 six-year election cycles Democrats have received a majority of voted cast, but only ended up with a senate majority 3 times.
In 3 six-year election cycles Republicans have receives a majority of votes and each time they've receives a senate majority, and 4 times they receives a senate majority despite having a minority of the votes.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_2014" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_2012" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_2010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_2008" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_2006" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_2004" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_2002" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_2000" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_1998" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_1996" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_1994" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_1992" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_1990" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 11:38 pm

Excellent post.

bluelabrador16 · Post by **bluelabrador16** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 11:39 pm

Timing Is Everything

!3th July

The Mueller investigation has brought a further 12 indictments against 12 Russian military officers

!6th July

Donald Trump and Russia's President Vladimir Putin will hold a summit in Helsinki

Quelle Surprise

Good news for the Neo-Cons/Neo-Libs and many posters on here.

Of note,

"Facebook VP of advertising, Rob Goldman, tossed a major hand grenade in the "pro-Trump" Russian meddling narrative in February when he fired off a series of tweets the day of the Russian indictments. Most notably, Goldman pointed out that the majority of advertising purchased by Russians on Facebook occurred after the election, were hardly pro-Trump, and they was designed to "sow discord and divide Americans", something which Americans have been quite adept at doing on their own ever since the Fed decided to unleash a record class, wealth, income divide by keeping capital markets artificially afloat at any cost."

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archive ... -in-court/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dy1geo · Post by **Dy1geo** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 11:43 pm

Comparing national total votes cast to a victory in an Electoral College first past the post system is a flawed argument and that’s why both Trump and Clinton campaigned mainly around swing states, California and New York are solid blue states with large populations and Clinton racked up votes in these states and if my memory serves me right Trump never once campaigned in these states. Clinton lost the Election because she thought the rust belt states were in the bag.

In this country with our first past the post system Labour can be elected with a majority on a lower national share of the vote than the Tories need.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 11:47 pm

bluelabrador16 wrote:Timing Is Everything

!3th July

The Mueller investigation has brought a further 12 indictments against 12 Russian military officers

!6th July

Donald Trump and Russia's President Vladimir Putin will hold a summit in Helsinki

Quelle Surprise

Good news for the Neo-Cons/Neo-Libs and many posters on here.

...and, oddly enough, all the other folk who happen not to be neo-cons/neo-liberals who also happen not to be Trump cultists or Putin apologists.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 11:51 pm

Dy1geo wrote:Comparing national total votes cast to a victory in an Electoral College first past the post system is a flawed argument and that’s why both Trump and Clinton campaigned mainly around swing states, California and New York are solid blue states with large populations and Clinton racked up votes in these states and if my memory serves me right Trump never once campaigned in these states. Clinton lost the Election because she thought the rust belt states were in the bag.

In this country with our first past the post system Labour can be elected with a majority on a lower national share of the vote than the Tories need.

You're more than welcome to divert the thread in any which way you please but the discussion around the electoral college started in response to a post stating the majority of Americans voted for Trump. This is demonstrably untrue.

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 11:58 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Yup

But as long as Lab and the Cons keep winning all the elections that will never change

Even with the FPTP system for Westminster elections,2010 produced a Con/LibDem coalition,2015 produced a small Con majority,and last year's snap election saw the Cons lose that majority and created a hung parliament,the last decent majority was Tony Blair's last term in 2005.

The public had a chance to change this antiquated system in 2011,and whether the electorate didn't understand the AV alternative,or Cameron's campaigning swung votes,there was a 2-1 majority to retain the status quo,it is perfectly possible that ensuing events have changed many people's opinions,but unless there is another Referendum nobody will know,i somehow guess the current Government won't be testing this theory anytime soon though.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 13, 2018 11:59 pm

Spiral wrote:You're more than welcome to divert the thread in any which way you please but the discussion around the electoral college started in response to a post stating the majority of Americans voted for Trump. This is demonstrably untrue.

The electoral college is on it's way out of relevence. It'd be near impossible to get a constitutional amendment ratified that eliminates it, but the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a neat way around that because each state gets to chose the criteria by which they assign EC votes. So all that needs to happen is for enough states that total 50% +1 EC votes in play to join the compact and then all of those states will give the winner of the national popular vote their EC votes.

It has a big hurdle to jump first though (see: Prospects)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... te_Compact" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 12:01 am

tiger76 wrote:Even with the FPTP system for Westminster elections,2010 produced a Con/LibDem coalition,2015 produced a small Con majority,and last year's snap election saw the Cons lose that majority and created a hung parliament,the last decent majority was Tony Blair's last term in 2005.

The public had a chance to change this antiquated system in 2011,and whether the electorate didn't understand the AV alternative,or Cameron's campaigning swung votes,there was a 2-1 majority to retain the status quo,it is perfectly possible that ensuing events have changed many people's opinions,but unless there is another Referendum nobody will know,i somehow guess the current Government won't be testing this theory anytime soon though.

They didn't vote for the status quo, they voted against AV. And the reason they voted against AV is, in my opinion, because Cameron went around telling everyone that it would mean some people would get two votes and duped enough gullible fools into believing that to be true.