Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I just posted a link about KT.  It says she was being sarcastic because at that time, the whole media was enthralled with Russia Gate.

The whole thing about lying to the FBI is being challenged by Sidney Powell on the basis that the FBI changed the 302.

Mueller could not prove anything about collusion in two years.  And he looked like a rather doddering old man before congress.

So now the Dems are going to the grand jury testimony to try and salvage something from Russiagate.

I thought this was now about Biden Gate?

IMO, McFarland's "sarcasm" defense never passed the sniff test in the case of that cached December 2016 transition team Email.  It's simply not plausible in the context of what she wrote.

As for Mueller's investigation, Trump stonewalled it from day one, after failing to obstruct it entirely.   Recall that Trump talked to both Dan Coates and James Comey about halting the Flynn investigation, prior to firing Comey-- the man who put him in the White House with his "October Surprise."

And when Trump was told that Rosenstein had appointed a Special "Russiagate" Prosecutor, he exclaimed, "I'm F*CKED!!"

Manafort lied about his "collusion" with Konstantin Kilimnik even AFTER his plea bargain agreement to cooperate with Mueller.

And Trump (and Don, Jr.) adamantly refused to talk to Mueller. 

Under the circumstances, Mueller's investigation, though highly productive, was still unfinished when Barr shut it down (and issued a bogus "summary" of the findings.)

Furthermore, Mueller made it clear that he was not permitted by DOJ guidelines to indict a sitting POTUS-- even on the ten counts of obstruction of justice-- but went out of his way to say that his investigation DID NOT EXONERATE Trump.
 

 

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Bob Ness. - I wouldn’t question your experiences in the legal realm, but I would ask how they are relevant. The indictments in question cite only minor / inconsequential inconsistencies (“lies”) which have no bearing on the larger question of alleged collusion. Technically, these inconsistencies could be construed as a misrepresentation and therefore technically violate the law against being less than truthful with government agents. Papadopoulos and Flynn both signed a document conceding exactly that, on the advice of their attorneys. Whether they did so because they truly felt remorse over their actions, or whether because they were convinced the least worst outcome was to follow the advice given - I do not know personally, but their behaviour afterwards suggests the latter.

 

A commercial marketing firm would purchase the ads. It’s officially conceded in the Mueller Report that the IRA is a commercial marketing firm. The GRU angle is an extra twist which is as yet an unproven allegation. The allegation is currently disputed in a DC courtroom. There is no indication of “secret evidence” that cannot be revealed, I.e. no classified references.

The Logan Act had been mothballed for about two centuries and was not an active guideline. No one has been indicted from the Trump team for contact with foreign persons. Flynn has not been indicted for violating the Logan Act. There is no law or precedent preventing contact between an elected transition team and foreign nationals.

How is this so? What attack? $100,000 in Facebook ads over a two year period is what sort of attack? Why are you so upset about it? It was likely a clickbait scheme which has been wildly misconstrued. The DNC email “hack” indictment is hotly contested, mostly by Americans themselves. Nothing about that yet rises to the level of verifiable fact. Why are you outraged?

 

It’s not a “fact”.  The “Russia manipulated our election” story remains entirely murky even years later, even after a very very thorough investigation. What’s the basis for your conclusions? How do you know what Flynn “knew absolutely”? Do you feel the Trump transition team was obliged to view Russia as an “adversary country”?

Just stop. Read the Senate Intel report volumes 1 and 2. I don't care if it's in front of a court. If they win the dispute get back to me. Maybe you can tell me why a third of it is redacted. Just a guess - there's bunches and bunches of classified material under there! And that's why whomever is disputing it has tried to find out what it is! Viola!

http://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjKtcqo78DlAhUHuZ4KHdY6BsYQFjABegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw0Lk0TJbWjh0ea9JOMQUD4Y

Edited October 29, 2019 by Bob Ness

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

In other words, even though Mueller could not prove anything about collusion, what the Russians did was "an unprecedented attack" on the USA?

Are we supposed to forget about Pearl Harbor, or the British burning Washington, or Lee's attack at Gettysburg?

But I am sure Bob will say it was a cyber war. Some war, with xxxxx farms.

Come on now Jim. I really like your posts mostly and you know better:

unprecedented

Adjective

without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled: an unprecedented event.

 

Yes read the Senate Intel report! You helped pay for it. And it's not collusion they have to prove it's conspiracy. Were they using Twitter bots during the Civil War? I didn't know that. But please read the report. This is a link to volume two which will have the information you so desire...

http://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjKtcqo78DlAhUHuZ4KHdY6BsYQFjABegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw0Lk0TJbWjh0ea9JOMQUD4Y

Edited October 29, 2019 by Bob Ness

[Douglas Caddy]

Mark Zaid is a key figure in this story. He comes across as a straight-shooter, an ethical attorney representing his client in a professional manner.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/nunes-aide-is-leaking-the-ukraine-whistleblowers-name-sources-say/ar-AAJuYyM?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=UE07DHP

[James DiEugenio]

Zaid is a straight shooter?

Really, ask John K or Jeff Sterling.

BN: We of course hear of exceptional cases from time to time but that's what they are - exceptional.

If this is not an exceptional case then what is?

Edited October 29, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Let me ask a rhetorical question:  Would Russia Gate have happened if HRC won the election?

Obviously not.  There would have been no controversy over the Steele Dossier, Comey would have never shoved it in Trump's face and in all probability Buzzfeed would have not published it. Which means that Trump would not have fired Comey and there would have been no Mueller.

How did this all really occur then?  Because the entire Establishment and MSM thought HRC was going to win. Recall, Huffpost said it was in the bag, a probability of over 90 per cent. Almost every pundit and every celebrity  said Trump was not going to win.

HRC had every material advantage in the race, in fact it was not close in that regard--more money, more workers, the Access Hollywood tape etc.  How did she lose then?  As Steve Bannon said, they outflanked her.  They spent their limited funds in holding onto the south, and making forays into the upper midwest and mideast.  That is the Rust Belt.  And they disguised Trump as the economic nationalist.  Since they knew no one would buy HRC in that role due to her husband's record on NAFTA and Glass Steagall.  No one bought her as a change agent.  When a Democrat loses Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, something is wrong someplace. Here it was both the candidate and the strategy.

No one likes to admit they ran a stupid ass campaign, even though they had all the advantages. So HRC blamed Comey and the Russians. 

And what is amazing is that she is still doing it with Stein and Gabbard.  Which shows you what a sore loser she is.  And also how she cannot take responsibilty for her own mistakes. She picked two bad managers in Penn and Mook. And she then blew the VP choice with the ultra safe pick of Kaine.  When in fact Sanders or Warren would have given her a real rocket boost. In fact, I think she would have won with either of them. These were all her mistakes, just as letting Trump make twice as many visits to the upper midwest was a bad error on her part while  actually trying to extend herself into states like Arizona and ignoring her base.

So, she decided to blame her defeat not on Mook, or herself but Comey and the Russians. Its called transference of  guilt.  And now she plays even more the demagogue with Stein and Gabbard.  This is not statesmanship and it is not being gracious in defeat.  And its not good for the Democratic Party. But mostly its not being candid about one's own failures. As Bannon said, her tactics played right into his gameplan.  He said economic nationalism beats identity politics every time. And it did.

And that is what happened.  And Michael Moore predicted it --with no Ruskie interference--and no one would listen.

Edited October 29, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Bacon]

17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me ask a rhetorical question:  Would Russia Gate have happened if HRC won the election?

Obviously not.

With due respect Mr. Di I disagree with your answer.  Russian meddling would surely be investigated.  Remember, Trump was warned that Russia was trying to make contact with his campaign.  All evidence of Russian meddling would have been thoroughly investigated.   And it would have turned up the same info.  The investigation wouldn't have been impeded by all the stonewalling and lying.

[Paul Bacon]

10 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

11 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Why shouldn’t the Trump transition team have been concerned about Obama’s12/16 announcement? It initiated an unprecedented expression of hostility to the Russian Federation, based on unproven allegations, and would have the potential effect of damaging policy initiatives campaigned on by the President-elect.

Because the behavior of the Russians was an unprecedented attack on our country? Maybe that is what everyone was so concerned about? But Trump and his campaign and transition team were attempting to reward them? Jeez. Jeff I don't see why you defend this. It laughable - you sound like Putin et al are bunch school girls being treated so unfairly - it's an outrage!

Besides which, I don't remember Trump ever having any public policy initiatives toward Russia during the election.  At that time, he was denying he had any relationship to Russia.

[Andrew Prutsok]

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

In other words, even though Mueller could not prove anything about collusion, what the Russians did was "an unprecedented attack" on the USA?

Are we supposed to forget about Pearl Harbor, or the British burning Washington, or Lee's attack at Gettysburg?

But I am sure Bob will say it was a cyber war. Some war, with xxxxx farms.

It says in the report he couldn't prove it because of all the lying. 

[Andrew Prutsok]

2 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

With due respect Mr. Di I disagree with your answer.  Russian meddling would surely be investigated.  Remember, Trump was warned that Russia was trying to make contact with his campaign.  All evidence of Russian meddling would have been thoroughly investigated.   And it would have turned up the same info.  The investigation wouldn't have been impeded by all the stonewalling and lying.

Obviously he has gone off the rails, down the Q rathole. People are never the same after that.

[Bob Ness]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me ask a rhetorical question:  Would Russia Gate have happened if HRC won the election?

Obviously not.  There would have been no controversy over the Steele Dossier, Comey would have never shoved it in Trump's face and in all probability Buzzfeed would have not published it. Which means that Trump would not have fired Comey and there would have been no Mueller.

How did this all really occur then?  Because the entire Establishment and MSM thought HRC was going to win. Recall, Huffpost said it was in the bag, a probability of over 90 per cent. Almost every pundit and every celebrity  said Trump was not going to win.

HRC had every material advantage in the race, in fact it was not close in that regard--more money, more workers, the Access Hollywood tape etc.  How did she lose then?  As Steve Bannon said, they outflanked her.  They spent their limited funds in holding onto the south, and making forays into the upper midwest and mideast.  That is the Rust Belt.  And they disguised Trump as the economic nationalist.  Since they knew no one would buy HRA in that role due to her husband's record on NAFTA and Glass Steagall.  No one bought her as a change agent.  When a Democrat loses Wisconsin, Michigan Ohio and Pennsylvania, something is wrong someplace. Here it was both the candidate and the strategy.

No one likes to admit they ran a stupid ass campaign, even though they had all the advantages. So HRC blamed Comey and the Russians. 

And what is amazing is that she is still doing it with Stein and Gabbard.  Which shows you what a sore loser she is.  And also how she cannot take responsibilty for her own mistakes. She picked two bad managers in Penn and Mook. And she then blew the VP choice with the ultra safe pick of Kaine.  When in fact Sanders or Warren would have given her a real rocket boost. In fact, I think she would have won with either of them. These were all her mistakes, just as letting Trump make twice as many visits to the upper midwest was a bad error on her part while was actually trying to extend herself into states like Arizona while ignoring her base.

So, she decided to blame her defeat not on Mook, or herself but Comey and the Russians. Its called transference of  guilt.  And now she plays even more the demagogue with Stein and Gabbard.  This is not statesmanship and it is not being gracious in defeat.  And its not good for the Democratic Party. But mostly its not being candid about one's own failures. As Bannon said, her tactics played right into his gameplan.  He said economic nationalism beats identity politics every time. And it did.

And that is what happened.  And Michael Moore predicted it --with no Ruskie interference--and no one would listen.

I agree with virtually everything you say here about the idiotic "strategy" of the Democrats. Other events entered into to it (Comey's announcement, voter rolls etc) but the fact is it should have been a cake walk.

I do think much of the interference, suspicions etc would have been investigated but usually the winner doesn't pursue their opponent in these cases opting to unite the country rather than settle scores.

I have never been a big fan of either Clinton although I believe Hilary was possibly the most qualified candidate I've seen in my lifetime if not ever. What we're now seeing IMO is the end result of a virtually bankrupt candidate with no experience who has no idea of what the job entails or how to function within established norms and in some instances laws.

This whole mess was predictable and the Republicans have to get back closer to the mainstream in my view. What used to be Eisenhower Republicans are now centrist Democrats and have difficulty presenting a reasonable candidate to most Americans IMO (Bush, Trump, Palin - VP). McCain could have been acceptable until he selected Palin - plus Obama was going to be tough to beat.

[Bob Ness]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BN: We of course hear of exceptional cases from time to time but that's what they are - exceptional.

If this is not an exceptional case then what is?

Read this to mean exception. Same-same.

[Jeff Carter]

At least the Senate Committee On Intelligence Report (Volume 2) has been identified as the ur-text in regard to Russian interference. I note in their findings that Russian government sponsorship is first identified as aspirational, and then presumed because it is “consistent” with the aspirations. The Committee’s own “understanding” of the presumed relationship between the IRA’s CEO and Putin himself seals the deal because it “points to” significant Kremlin support. Hmmmm. Maybe that’s why the court challenge in DC keeps getting delayed when the IRA’s lawyers request substantive information.

It is also notable that the scope of the “massive attack” does not extend much beyond $100,000 in Facebook ad buys. Just for context, professional propaganda campaigns have been in the news, and information about their budgets are available. Syria’s White Helmets, for example, were working on annual budgets of about $30 million - and they were only moderately successful. The Integrity Initiative - devised to “defend democracy from Russian disinformation” received over $3 million from the UK government for fiscal 2017, and is only one part of the UK’s Conflict, Stability, and Security Fund which has a slush fund of over a billion dollars. That’s serious money - the Russian program seems so…. piddling, in comparison. Am I missing something?

[James DiEugenio]

BN: What used to be Eisenhower Republicans are now centrist Democrats and have difficulty presenting a reasonable candidate to most Americans 

This is so true that it is now a truism.  And IMO, this is why Trump won the GOP nomination and Sanders almost won the Democratic nomination.

The Democrats have become the Eisenhower Republicans and the Republicans have gone to the right of Goldwater.

Paul and Andrew, no I do not think there would have been any inquiry.  Because as Bob says, virtually every time, if you win, you do not do that stuff.

 

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

At least the Senate Committee On Intelligence Report (Volume 2) has been identified as the ur-text in regard to Russian interference. I note in their findings that Russian government sponsorship is first identified as aspirational, and then presumed because it is “consistent” with the aspirations. The Committee’s own “understanding” of the presumed relationship between the IRA’s CEO and Putin himself seals the deal because it “points to” significant Kremlin support. Hmmmm. Maybe that’s why the court challenge in DC keeps getting delayed when the IRA’s lawyers request substantive information.

The court challenge by IRA is going to be delayed in part to because of classified information, which is extensive in the Senate report. The intelligence agencies of Russia aren't stupid. If they can mine information from seemingly innocuous legal disclosures they will, and I believe have done so before (though I don't currently have a source for that - it's pretty obvious IMO).

The Wagner Group, in case you're interested:

https://www.fpri.org/article/2019/10/diplomacy-and-dividends-who-really-controls-the-wagner-group/
Please check the heading Titled "Linkages between Wagner and the Russian State" which has an interesting flow chart of the different Russian entities. You'll find IRA in there.

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

It is also notable that the scope of the “massive attack” does not extend much beyond $100,000 in Facebook ad buys. Just for context, professional propaganda campaigns have been in the news, and information about their budgets are available. Syria’s White Helmets, for example, were working on annual budgets of about $30 million - and they were only moderately successful. The Integrity Initiative - devised to “defend democracy from Russian disinformation” received over $3 million from the UK government for fiscal 2017, and is only one part of the UK’s Conflict, Stability, and Security Fund which has a slush fund of over a billion dollars. That’s serious money - the Russian program seems so…. piddling, in comparison. Am I missing something?

The ad buys are a small fraction of what can be accomplished in an internet influence campaign. The report states that IRA spent millions in the online effort but FB doesn't account for much of that impact. That doesn't matter. For instance:

The report states that twitter reported that 50,000 accounts identified as bots were coming from Russia. If for example, Jim Di had 50,000 bots back linking K&K it could have an enormous impact on organic search results and traffic driven to his site. Some years ago link farms were developed to back link to web sites when Black Hat SEO's figured out that back links were the most important part of the Google (and others) search algorithm. You could actually buy for $10 thousands of bogus back links and drive a web site up in the search results (SERPS). When Google figured it out they penalized the sites and changed their algorithm (abt 2012?? - Google "Penguin Update" if interested/unfamiliar). Thousands of web sites whose SEO's had used this tactic went out of business or had to change their URLs because it was impossible to undo the damage by asking thousands of sites to remove the links.

Part of all this is the technical skill of the Black Hat operators and their ability to leverage their money ( mostly through labor not ad purchases ) in organic campaigns using the web, Youtube, comment spamming (linking through comment sections of sites like we do here), Instagram etc. Quantifying these activities would be the purview of SIGINT activities rather than canvassing providers (although that is helpful) which I'm sure is possible using inbound traffic results - no doubt the NSA has ridiculous decryption capabilities.

Thanks for reading the report to respond to this.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Bob Ness