The Robert Mueller Investigation

[bolverk 30390]

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

[Anastasis 23722]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Maybe we can move the FISA abuse discussion to a thread where it can be discussed without detracting from the main points of the Mueller investigation.

It really doesn’t fit here. Further discussion just tends to feel like trolling or thread drift.

Just saying.

I disagree. I don't think it needs to be moved.  This has been the home to the discussion of these topics as they relate to the investigation for a long time. Before the OIG report dropped, this thread had pretty much gone dormant, days at a time with no activity, so it's not like there was robust discussion of the Mueller report interrupted by the related OIG. The world has largely moved on from Mueller's findings. The OIG investigation, as well as the others that are in place are directly relevant, and will potentially be the longer lasting legacy of what evolved into the Mueller investigation. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

[DDD Dad 14673]

I disagree. I don't think it needs to be moved.  This has been the home to the discussion of these topics as they relate to the investigation for a long time. Before the OIG report dropped, this thread had pretty much gone dormant, days at a time with no activity, so it's not like there was robust discussion of the Mueller report interrupted by the related OIG. The world has largely moved on from Mueller's findings. The OIG investigation, as well as the others that are in place are directly relevant, and will potentially be the longer lasting legacy of what evolved into the Mueller investigation. 

Especially if Barr and the Republicans are able to drive the narrative.

 

Look, I’m not minimizing the importance of rooting out abuses of a questionable procedure (FISA in general), but by putting it in the forefront of THIS thread it minimizes what Mueller was charged with investigating and ultimately found.

 

Let this issue have its own oxygen and not detract from Mueller and his findings.

 

I think FISA and its abuses DESERVES its own thread. Leaving it here actually gives partisans a reason to dismiss it.

 

[Anastasis 23722]

If you want a general surveillance state abuse thread, great.  I think it already exists, bern's privacy thread. 

In this thread, we are discussing a specific instance of surveillance state abuse in the context of the Russia investigation, with some consideration of the broader implications. It has been a part of this discussion for years. 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Anastasis

[GW Hayduke 1957]

When a retarded kid shits his pants, he can tell his mom, “whatabout the fisa abuses?”

Edited December 18, 2019 by GW Hayduke

[workswithseed 2205]

5 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

When a retarded kid shits his pants, he can tell him mom, “whatabout the fisa abuses?”

Are you that retarded kid?

[washparkhorn 9974]

5 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Are you that retarded kid?

We used to say ignore the troll. But, I suppose we need to understand more. Because there lies the possibility that Hayduke will contribute, whatever his perspective. Information is strength. So with all humility, let me try to reword your pointed but direct question in response to Hayduke's contribution thus far.

GW Hayduke - Are you having difficulty understanding the flow of this discussion?

If yes, go back to the release of the Inspector General Report that found 17 significant errors when the FBI prepared its FISA warrant application for a U.S. Citizen with full Fourth Amendment rights.

This is a secret process to surveil American Citizens amended after the 9/11 attacks under the Patriot Act.

We have been assured by Congress this process would use foolproof safeguards to protect U.S. Citizens from Fourth Amendment violations.

The FBI/DOJ in this one known instance used methods that violated those standards. This is the first FISA Warrant Application to be publicly reviewed, so it is signifiant to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

More importantly, in this one case, the application for the FISA warrant with the errors was filed with a Federal Court with exclusive jurisdiction to issue these warrants.

That Court has ordered the FBI/DOJ to explain how this happened and to fashion remedies to correct this error, including new procedures to ensure the accuracy of such warrant applications in the future. 

The Inspector General will now review FISA Warrant Applications submitted in other cases. 

Bigger picture - This matter falls within the scope of a broader now-criminal investigation by U.S. Attorney for Connecticut John Durham.

Durham is tasked with investigating US Government and foreign governments investigating and gathering intelligence in 2016 directed at associates of the Trump Presidential Campaign. See, June 10, 2109 DOJ letter to Rep. Nadler re scope of investigation at  http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/06/10/2019-6-10.doj.review.of.intelligence.activities.-.nadler.pdf.

Great Britain, Australia (both Five Eyes nations) and Turkey are the most likely foreign governments. 

As part of the warrant application for surveilling Carter Page (a known FBI/CIA informant on Russia at the time), the Federal Court was given information from the Steele Dossier, a document produced by C. Steele.

Mr. Steele is cooperating with the Durham investigation. 

I hope that helps, sincerely, and would love your perspective. Every perspective is a data point and I doubt you have an "outlier perspective." There is a broad swath of Americans with very little information on the subject. That lack of information falls under a broader failure by media providers both in the run-up to the 2016 Election and beyond. 

btw, I don't think you are that kid. 

Cheers.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

2 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

We used to say ignore the troll. But, I suppose we need to understand more. Because there lies the possibility that Hayduke will contribute, whatever his perspective. Information is strength. So with all humility, let me try to reword your pointed but direct question in response to Hayduke's contribution thus far.

GW Hayduke - Are you having difficulty understanding the flow of this discussion?

If yes, go back to the release of the Inspector General Report that found 17 significant errors when the FBI prepared its FISA warrant application for a U.S. Citizen with full Fourth Amendment rights.

This is a secret process to surveil American Citizens amended after the 9/11 attacks under the Patriot Act.

We have been assured by Congress this process would use foolproof safeguards to protect U.S. Citizens from Fourth Amendment violations.

The FBI/DOJ in this one known instance used methods that violated those standards. This is the first FISA Warrant Application to be publicly reviewed, so it is signifiant to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

More importantly, in this one case, the application for the FISA warrant with the errors was filed with a Federal Court with exclusive jurisdiction to issue these warrants.

That Court has ordered the FBI/DOJ to explain how this happened and to fashion remedies to correct this error, including new procedures to ensure the accuracy of such warrant applications in the future. 

The Inspector General will now review FISA Warrant Applications submitted in other cases. 

Bigger picture - This matter falls within the scope of a broader now-criminal investigation by U.S. Attorney for Connecticut John Durham.

Durham is tasked with investigating US Government and foreign governments investigating and gathering intelligence in 2016 directed at associates of the Trump Presidential Campaign. See, June 10, 2109 DOJ letter to Rep. Nadler re scope of investigation at  http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/06/10/2019-6-10.doj.review.of.intelligence.activities.-.nadler.pdf.

Great Britain, Australia (both Five Eyes nations) and Turkey are the most likely foreign governments. 

As part of the warrant application for surveilling Carter Page (a known FBI/CIA informant on Russia at the time), the Federal Court was given information from the Steele Dossier, a document produced by C. Steele.

Mr. Steele is cooperating with the Durham investigation. 

I hope that helps, sincerely, and would love your perspective. Every perspective is a data point and I doubt you have an "outlier perspective." There is a broad swath of Americans with very little information on the subject. That lack of information falls under a broader failure by media providers both in the run-up to the 2016 Election and beyond. 

btw, I don't think you are that kid. 

Cheers.

When your candidate's campaign has 100+ contacts with a hostile foreign country, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When your candidate's campaign provided internal polling data to that hostile foreign country, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When your candidate's campaign was coordinating with wikileaks (a cutout of that hostile foreign country), WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When that hostile foreign country attacks our election to benefit your candidate, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When it is documented that your candidate attempted to obstruct the investigation into the hostile foreign country's attacks, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When your candidate goes to Helsinki and sucks off the leader of that hostile foreign country, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When your candidate spontaneously pulls troops out of Syria, screwing an ally while benefiting that hostile foreign country, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When your dad is ashamed that all the chickens have been violated, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When your candidate held up military aid to an ally in active conflict with that hostile foreign country, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When your candidate can't stop loving the leader of North Korea, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When BoTh SiDeS only takes you so far, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

The best is that if you ask "WhAtAbOuT fIsA" enough times, you can pretend there isn't a motive behind all of these actions, you can pretend that your candidate has shared his tax returns and financials.

Edited December 18, 2019 by GW Hayduke

[Anastasis 23722]

The majority of those have no direct tie to the mueller report. Most of the ones that do are framed in such a way to overstate the actual findings from the mueller report.
 

The reality is that some posters see the OIG report as a distraction because it puts to rest some of their preferred pet conspiracy theories, and the related fan fiction, once and for all. Can’t have that. Non hyperbolic posturing is not acceptable. 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Anastasis

[GW Hayduke 1957]

42 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The majority of those have no direct tie to the mueller report. Most of the ones that do are framed in such a way to overstate the actual findings from the mueller report.

I captured Mueller’s finding that Russia attacked us to benefit trump and trump campaign’s work with Russia, plus the consequences of that attack, everything Russia got in return, while pointing out the obvious motive for trump being putin’s lapdog. It is all connected. You can’t document an attack without acknowledging the motives and consequences of that attack.

What did I overstate from mueller?

42 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The reality is that some posters see the OIG report as a distraction because it puts to rest some of their preferred pet conspiracy theories, and the related fan fiction, once and for all. Can’t have that. Non hyperbolic posturing is not acceptable. 

The reality is that Page’s warrant is irrelevant to everyone of the major facts that I stated. It has no bearing on the arc of the trump-Russia-GOP storyline. It is the epitome of a molehill

Edited December 18, 2019 by GW Hayduke

[triplehorn 2664]

41 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The majority of those have no direct tie to the mueller report. Most of the ones that do are framed in such a way to overstate the actual findings from the mueller report.
 

The reality is that some posters see the OIG report as a distraction because it puts to rest some of their preferred pet conspiracy theories, and the related fan fiction, once and for all. Can’t have that. Non hyperbolic posturing is not acceptable. 

I think what GW is getting at is that neither you nor washpark (in his timely appearance on this thread) have acknowledged that the Trump campaign publicly welcomed and privately sought Russian election interference to benefit Trump, and that Trump personally was in communication with Roger Stone around anticipated drops of goods stolen by Russian actors that were coordinated to optimize electoral prospects of Trump.  Everything else he posted beyond Mueller's work further substantiates the larger context that Trump is compromised by Putin.

[Anastasis 23722]

10 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

I think what GW is getting at is that neither you nor washpark (in his timely appearance on this thread) have acknowledged that the Trump campaign publicly welcomed and privately sought Russian election interference to benefit Trump, and that Trump personally was in communication with Roger Stone around anticipated drops of goods stolen by Russian actors that were coordinated to optimize electoral prospects of Trump.  Everything else he posted beyond Mueller's work further substantiates the larger context that Trump is compromised by Putin.

Imagine the alternate universe where, over the last three years, the discussion on the various threads related to the Trump campaign's actions during the 2016 election were centered around a rhetorical joke during a press conference and Roger Stones back channel to Assange, rather than the load of right out nonsense you peddled here about servers and brokerage rights etc. ad infinitum. 

[triplehorn 2664]

you're still not acknowledging.

[Anastasis 23722]

19 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

What did I overstate from mueller?

 

 

When your candidate's campaign has 100+ contacts with a hostile foreign country, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When your candidate's campaign provided internal polling data to that hostile foreign country, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When your candidate's campaign was coordinating with wikileaks (a cutout of that hostile foreign country), WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

 

Go ahead and cite the specific text citations where Mueller made these conclusions, specifically in the terms you have related them here. 

[Anastasis 23722]

10 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

you're still not acknowledging.

I acknowledged nearly two years ago that when we were all done here what we would be left with is a bunch of people pointing to a press conference.

ETA: Here's the quote from TOS (06/13/2017). Some parts aged better than others, but there you go. 

I know it's lost among all the unhinged nonsense on this thread, but I've registered my opinion regarding most of those individuals. Sessions didn't collude with Russia to fix the election. Stone is a reckless buffoon, and I want little more in life than to see him testify in open session at the ssic. I've seen page speak, and am unconvinced that he is intellectually capable of bringing American democracy to its knees. If there is going to be evidence of collusion, it's gonna be manafort. But that guy is a $#@!ing operator. He ain't gonna leave a record. My suspicion is that no definitive evidence of collusion will surface. You will be left with specious arguments likes ant's "omg trump colluded with Russia to hack the election in a press conference, it was right under our noses the whole time". What the investigation will uncover is financial ties and shady transactions inherent to high end international real estate. Democrats take house in 2018 and impeach on shaky grounds cause #resist, senate does not remove from office. 2020 either the parties get their shirt together or hopefully a meteor puts us all out of our misery.

Now how about you acknowledge that you peddled counter-productive conspiracy delusions on this board over that entire time frame. 

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Anastasis

[David Dennison 19574]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I acknowledged nearly two years ago that when we were all done here what we would be left with is a bunch of people pointing to a press conference.

Now how about you acknowledge that you peddled counter-productive conspiracy delusions on this board over that entire time frame. 

 

Just so we're all clear and for people who haven't read the entire thread, what, exactly, are you saying didn't happen?

[triplehorn 2664]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I acknowledged nearly two years ago that when we were all done here what we would be left with is a bunch of people pointing to a press conference.

Now how about you acknowledge that you peddled counter-productive conspiracy delusions on this board over that entire time frame. 

 

still not acknowledging how wrong you were then, and even today, still.  amazing.

[Anastasis 23722]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Just so we're all clear and for people who haven't read the entire thread, what, exactly, are you saying didn't happen?

Can you provide a catalog of the various nonsense triple spewed here? That would be a good starting point. 

[Anastasis 23722]

2 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

still not acknowledging how wrong you were then, and even today, still.  amazing.

[David Dennison 19574]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Can you provide a catalog of the various nonsense triple spewed here? That would be a good starting point. 

No. I'd like you to summarize the conspiracy and what didn't happen.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

25 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

When your candidate's campaign has 100+ contacts with a hostile foreign country, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When your candidate's campaign provided internal polling data to that hostile foreign country, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When your candidate's campaign was coordinating with wikileaks (a cutout of that hostile foreign country), WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

 

Go ahead and cite the specific text citations where Mueller made these conclusions, specifically in the terms you have related them here. 

Really? You aren’t familiar with the report?

Section IV, pages 66-168 is titled “Russian Government Links To and Contacts With The Trump Campaign.” It is a huge art of the report. If you question this basic understanding, then ??

Page 129 details Manafort and Gates giving polling data to Kilimnik, dude with ties to Russian intelligence.

Stone is redacted from the report except for the descriptions inferred from the questions given to Trump. You’ll need to look to his indictment for hard details. Wikileaks is identifies as “organization 1.”

This is basic shit. If you aren’t up to speed and able acknowledge basic facts, then ?? what are you doing here?

Edited December 18, 2019 by GW Hayduke

[bernorange 8388]

17 hours ago, Anastasis said:

FISC orders CAPA plan, ...

 

17 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

The FISA Court's Order is a huge step in the right direction. That is a rare public rebuke. ...

FWIW:

Quote

During a stunning interview last Sunday Devin Nunes called for the FISA court to be deconstructed.  In my opinion it was that statement, not the IG report, that spurred FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer to make a public order today.

Today, hours after Judge Collyer released her order, Devin Nunes responded to the review of the FISC by stating, accurately, Judge Collyer doth protest too much.

In this interview Devin Nunes outlines his February 2018 notification to the FISC about the specific fraud upon the court; and as a result of that (and a follow-up) notification, Nunes again takes the FISC to task for saying they were not aware.  Collyer was aware because Nunes told her.

Accepting the totality of the FISC obfuscation, HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes again calls for the dismantling of the FISA court process.
...

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/17/nuclear-devin-nunes-questions-fisc-judge-lack-of-candor-again-calls-for-dismantling-of-fisa-court/

From roughly 1:40 to 4:00:

 

[WhatTheBuck 28943]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

When your candidate's campaign has 100+ contacts with a hostile foreign country, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When your candidate's campaign provided internal polling data to that hostile foreign country, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When your candidate's campaign was coordinating with wikileaks (a cutout of that hostile foreign country), WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When that hostile foreign country attacks our election to benefit your candidate, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When it is documented that your candidate attempted to obstruct the investigation into the hostile foreign country's attacks, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When your candidate goes to Helsinki and sucks off the leader of that hostile foreign country, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When your candidate spontaneously pulls troops out of Syria, screwing an ally while benefiting that hostile foreign country, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When your dad is ashamed that all the chickens have been violated, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When your candidate held up military aid to an ally in active conflict with that hostile foreign country, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When your candidate can't stop loving the leader of North Korea, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

When BoTh SiDeS only takes you so far, WhAtAbOuT fIsA??!?

The best is that if you ask "WhAtAbOuT fIsA" enough times, you can pretend there isn't a motive behind all of these actions, you can pretend that your candidate has shared his tax returns and financials.

Ignore the troll. 

[triplehorn 2664]

25 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

ETA: Here's the quote from TOS (06/13/2017). Some parts aged better than others, but there you go. 

...My suspicion is that no definitive evidence of collusion will surface. You will be left with specious arguments likes ant's "omg trump colluded with Russia to hack the election in a press conference, it was right under our noses the whole time"....

truly amazing.  you're still not acknowledging it.  

[Anastasis 23722]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Really? You aren’t familiar with the report?

Section IV, pages 66-168 is titled “Russian Government Links To and Contacts With The Trump Campaign.” It is a huge art of the report. If you question this basic understanding, then ??

Page 129 details Manafort and Gates giving polling data to Kilimnik, dude with ties to Russian intelligence.

Stone is redacted from the report. You’ll need to look to his indictment. Wikileaks is identifies as “organization 1.”

Oh, I am familiar.

I can tell you that there are not 100+ contacts between the Campaign and the Russian Government in the section you reference titled "Russian Government Links to and Contacts with the Trump Campaign."  I can also tell you how that section is concluded:

In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away. Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.

 

Kilimnik is not a hostile foreign country, and his ties are multilateral (US, Ukraine, Russia governments). Mueller found that he was acting as a representative of Deripaska, and the material was being provided in effort for Manafort to ingratiate himself to OVD, shoring up his potential future ability to clear debts through access peddling. Again, I find it interesting that Mueller pulled on this string regarding OVD's intersection with 2016 election influence operations, but not his intersection with Steele's work. But to bottom line this one, Mueller found no evidence that the polling data was connected to the Russian influence operation during the investigation. In Mueller's words, from the section you quoted:

Manafort instructed Rick Gates, his deputy on the Campaign and a longtime employee,839 to provide Kilimnik with updates on the Trump Campaign—including internal polling data, although Manafort claims not to recall that specific instruction. Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with others in Ukraine and with Deripaska. Gates periodically sent such polling data to Kilimnik during the campaign.

...

The Office could not reliably determine Manafort’s purpose in sharing internal polling data with Kilimnik during the campaign period. Manafort did not see a downside to sharing campaign information, and told Gates that his role in the Campaign would be “good for business” and potentially a way to be made whole for work he previously completed in the Ukraine. As to Deripaska, Manafort claimed that by sharing campaign information with him, Deripaska might see value in their relationship and resolve a “disagreement”—a reference to one or more outstanding lawsuits. Because of questions about Manafort’s credibility and our limited ability to gather evidence on what happened to the polling data after it was sent to Kilimnik, the Office could not assess what Kilimnik (or others he may have given it to) did with it. The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort’s sharing polling data and Russia’s interference in the election, which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting. The investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts.

 

As I said, you frame the findings and overstate to support your rhetorical sing-song.  To be clear, I do appreciate the effort. 

[Anastasis 23722]

If you need something to background watch while the impeachment proceedings jump through the parliamentary hoops, Horowitz back in front of Senate today.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?467350-1/justice-dept-ig-testifies-origins-fbis-russia-inquiry&live&vod

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It's crazy Micheal Flynn still has not been sentenced. 

[David Dennison 19574]

Here's a question. Why are there ANY contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

$$$

[triplehorn 2664]

It is noted that Anastasis refuses to acknowledge that the Trump campaign publicly welcomed and privately sought Russian election interference to benefit Trump, and that Trump personally was in communication with Roger Stone around anticipated drops of goods stolen by Russian actors that were coordinated to optimize electoral prospects of Trump.

still waiting on washpark.

[Anastasis 23722]

Do I have to have Louise Mensch put it in a tweet to get through to you?

[Biff Tannen 46250]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Manafort instructed Rick Gates, his deputy on the Campaign and a longtime employee,839 to provide Kilimnik with updates on the Trump Campaign—including internal polling data, although Manafort claims not to recall that specific instruction. Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with others in Ukraine and with Deripaska. Gates periodically sent such polling data to Kilimnik during the campaign.

...

The Office could not reliably determine Manafort’s purpose in sharing internal polling data with Kilimnik during the campaign period. Manafort did not see a downside to sharing campaign information, and told Gates that his role in the Campaign would be “good for business” and potentially a way to be made whole for work he previously completed in the Ukraine. As to Deripaska, Manafort claimed that by sharing campaign information with him, Deripaska might see value in their relationship and resolve a “disagreement”—a reference to one or more outstanding lawsuits. Because of questions about Manafort’s credibility and our limited ability to gather evidence on what happened to the polling data after it was sent to Kilimnik, the Office could not assess what Kilimnik (or others he may have given it to) did with it. The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort’s sharing polling data and Russia’s interference in the election, which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting. The investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts.

Any rational human can connect these dots.  C'mon man.

[burntorangebongos 10826]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Here's a question. Why are there ANY contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government?

More importantly, why did they not report the contact to the FBI? 

[GW Hayduke 1957]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Oh, I am familiar.

I can tell you that there are not 100+ contacts between the Campaign and the Russian Government in the section you reference titled "Russian Government Links to and Contacts with the Trump Campaign."  I can also tell you how that section is concluded:

In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away. Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.

 

Kilimnik is not a hostile foreign country, and his ties are multilateral (US, Ukraine, Russia governments). Mueller found that he was acting as a representative of Deripaska, and the material was being provided in effort for Manafort to ingratiate himself to OVD, shoring up his potential future ability to clear debts through access peddling. Again, I find it interesting that Mueller pulled on this string regarding OVD's intersection with 2016 election influence operations, but not his intersection with Steele's work. But to bottom line this one, Mueller found no evidence that the polling data was connected to the Russian influence operation during the investigation. In Mueller's words, from the section you quoted:

Manafort instructed Rick Gates, his deputy on the Campaign and a longtime employee,839 to provide Kilimnik with updates on the Trump Campaign—including internal polling data, although Manafort claims not to recall that specific instruction. Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with others in Ukraine and with Deripaska. Gates periodically sent such polling data to Kilimnik during the campaign.

...

The Office could not reliably determine Manafort’s purpose in sharing internal polling data with Kilimnik during the campaign period. Manafort did not see a downside to sharing campaign information, and told Gates that his role in the Campaign would be “good for business” and potentially a way to be made whole for work he previously completed in the Ukraine. As to Deripaska, Manafort claimed that by sharing campaign information with him, Deripaska might see value in their relationship and resolve a “disagreement”—a reference to one or more outstanding lawsuits. Because of questions about Manafort’s credibility and our limited ability to gather evidence on what happened to the polling data after it was sent to Kilimnik, the Office could not assess what Kilimnik (or others he may have given it to) did with it. The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort’s sharing polling data and Russia’s interference in the election, which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting. The investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts.

 

As I said, you frame the findings and overstate to support your rhetorical sing-song.  To be clear, I do appreciate the effort. 

How can you tell me there isn’t 100 plus contacts?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_Report#Conspiracy_or_coordination

“The investigation found there were over 100 contacts between Trump campaign advisors and individuals affiliated with the Russian government, before and after the election, but the evidence was insufficient to show an illegal conspiracy.^[82] The New York Times estimated as many as 140 contacts between "Mr. Trump and his associates and Russian nationals and WikiLeaks or their intermediaries" in the report.^[83]”

I understand you think that trump’s campaign manager giving polling data to people with ties to Russian intelligence (OVD and Kilimnik) as harmless/normal/innocent and it’s just a coincidence that Russian intelligence was also targeting through social media the people that were polled.

And stone? Did you concede that?

[wildcat09 29609]

Donald Trump Jr. admitted to coordinating with Russia in fucking 2017 and Anastasis is still bullshitting. Truly amazing.

[jimmyjazz 47373]

Anastasis has a clear and pathological need to cast doubt on the Mueller report, as well as that of the OIG.  He is not currently (and never has been) acting in good faith. 

He's wasting everyone's time and obviously enjoys doing so.  

#incominggif

[jimmyjazz 47373]

3 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

How can you tell me there isn’t 100 plus contacts?

Just to add on, one can search the Mueller Report for the word "contact".  It appears 299 times.  I suspect Anastasis is word-smithing the argument by limiting it the # contacts referenced in that particular section.  Somebody else can count them up, but that would of course be feeding the troll.

[Bruh Man 3160]

 

 

[Anastasis 23722]

36 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Any rational human can connect these dots.  C'mon man.

Yes, I think so. Given the vast intelligence, data collection, and analytical resources of the FBI in coordination with the NSA and other alphabet agencies, and given Mueller's embrace of parallel construction as an investigation technique, The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort’s sharing polling data and Russia’s interference in the election, which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting.

 

 

Look guys, what we are left with after Mueller Vol I are the exhaust fumes of an investigation gassed up by an uncorroborated conspiracy narrative, packaged up into political opposition research by a spook, funded by an opposing political party, and inserted into the FBI to send them down a rabbit hole. There was no well-coordinated conspiracy between Trump and the Russian Government.

Trump is a severely psychologically damaged narcissist, and should have been removed from office after Helsiniki. He was and continues to be surrounded by an array of clowns, racists, and grifters. I don't think that anybody is arguing otherwise here. He will be removed from office in Jan 2021, and the Republic established by our Constitution, for whatever it is worth, will continue right along the path that all Republic's eventually take. 

Despite the claims to the contrary, I have never minimized or undermined the findings in Mueller, Vol II. In my opinion that is the real damaging output of the investigation, despite the OSC's reluctance to make a final determination on the obstruction issue.  He should have been impeached immediately based on the findings of the Mueller report. The problem some of you seem to have is coming to grips with the fact that some of you totally turned off your brain in the process, and allowed the roots of a crazy conspiracy theory to take hold in your brain skulls.  Tearing out those weeds has apparently been psychologically traumatic for some. 

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Anastasis

[wildcat09 29609]

Shorter Anastasis: “OJ didn’t do it.”

[Biff Tannen 46250]

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

He will be removed from office in Jan 2021,

What the fuck makes you have confidence this will come true?  How is it possible you have been paying attention to the complete and utter fealty that half of the government has given to this pustule and can still come to this conclusion?  The shit you are concerned about is fucking backwards man.

[Anastasis 23722]

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

What the fuck makes you have confidence this will come true?  How is it possible you have been paying attention to the complete and utter fealty that half of the government has given to this pustule and can still come to this conclusion?  The shit you are concerned about is fucking backwards man.

If he is not removed from office in 2021, it will be because he won re-election. And if that plays out, it will be because a substantial amount of our media and political bandwidth over the last few years has been fixated on breathlessly promoting a conspiracy narrative wrt Trump/Russia rather than focusing on real shit. We are an easily distracted and manipulated electorate. The media plays right into Trumps hand, and has since his campaign launched. "Focus on real shit people." Somebody here said something like that while this whole thing was spinning up.  

[Chuckie Finster 23113]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

If he is not removed from office in 2021, it will be because he won re-election. And if that plays out, it will be because a substantial amount of our media and political bandwidth over the last few years has been fixated on breathlessly promoting a conspiracy narrative wrt Trump/Russia rather than focusing on real shit. We are an easily distracted and manipulated electorate. The media plays right into Trumps hand, and has since his campaign launched. "Focus on real shit people." Somebody here said something like that while this whole thing was spinning up.  

"By gosh, us darned Republicans are just too dumb to actually form our own opinions or take responsibility for our actions, so let's blame the media and completely avoid any responsibility for the piece of shit human being that we have developed a cult following towards."

[triplehorn 2664]

21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Shorter Anastasis: “OJ didn’t do it.”

The risk of revealing that you are not dumb - that you function in work at a hight level, presumably interfacing with doctoral candidates among other things - is that you are being dishonest.  What Anastasis has engaged in ceaselessly is more than bullshitting. It's rank dishonesty.  The more interesting question is what motivates it.

[Anastasis 23722]

BTW, the Horowitz testimony today involves a little less histrionics than the one last week.

Horowitz just rejected the notion that his investigation concluded there was no political bias present in the process of obtaining the FISA against Page. [transcript based on CC, so some stuff gets garbled]. 

Sen: I THINK THE SCOPE HERE IS WHAT REALLY ALARMS ME. THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INVOLVED DIRECTLY INVOLVED AT THE FBI, THE REPEATED DECISIONS TO MISLEAD, OUTRIGHT LIE TO THE FISA COURT, AND THE TOTAL IMPLAZ INLT THAT THE EXPLANATIONS THESE PEOPLE OFFERED YOU, AGAIN, MAYBE THEY'RE INCOME TEPT OR HAD AN AGENDA HERE. I WANT TO PUT A FINE POINT ON THAT. WAS IT YOUR CONCLUSION THAT POLITICAL BIAS DID NOT AFFECT ANY PART OF THE PAGE INVESTIGATION, ANY PART OF CROSSFIRE HURRICANE? I KNOW FOR A FACT I'VE HEARD THAT TODAY FROM THIS COMMITTEE, BUT THAT'S NOT YOUR CONCLUSION?

Hor: WE HAVE BEEN VERY CAREFUL IN CONNECTION WITH THE FISA FOR THE REASONS YOU MENTIONED TO NOT REACH THAT CONCLUSION, IN PART, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, THE ALTERATION OF THE EMAIL, THE TEXT MESSAGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE INDIVIDUAL WHO DID THAT, AND OUR INABILITY TO EXPLAIN OR UNDERSTAND OR GET GOOD EXPLANATIONS SO WE COULD UNDERSTAND WHY THIS HAPPENED.

[hayden_horn 11403]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If he is not removed from office in 2021, it will be because he won re-election. And if that plays out, it will be because a substantial amount of our media and political bandwidth over the last few years has been fixated on breathlessly promoting a conspiracy narrative wrt Trump/Russia rather than focusing on real shit. We are an easily distracted and manipulated electorate. The media plays right into Trumps hand, and has since his campaign launched. "Focus on real shit people." Somebody here said something like that while this whole thing was spinning up.  

so, i'm having a hard time with this thread. your motivations seem clear enough, i suppose, but then you make a post like this.

with the litany of pro-russian behavior of this president, and the undeniable contact his campaign has had with russia and now ukraine, and you want to blame the media for pointing it out/talking about it? i'm stumped here. this seems like a straight troll job, i gotta be honest with you.

[kevwun 16458]

He doesn't support Trump.  He just thinks nothing is ever his fault.

[wildcat09 29609]

17 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

so, i'm having a hard time with this thread. your motivations seem clear enough, i suppose, but then you make a post like this.

with the litany of pro-russian behavior of this president, and the undeniable contact his campaign has had with russia and now ukraine, and you want to blame the media for pointing it out/talking about it? i'm stumped here. this seems like a straight troll job, i gotta be honest with you.

That's because it is.

[TwiceHorn 32132]

1 hour ago, Bruh Man said:

 

 

That's interesting.  Consistent with what I thought, but there are some exceptions in NY law that might have provided a different result.  Will be interesting to see the order.