• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller asking if Trump knew about hacked Democratic emails before release

Renae said:
No, i just don't buy that it was a Russian hack. The facts don't point to that. I can't help what you think, you want it to be the Russians, you've bought into the "Trump Collusion" crap.
Click to expand...

Well, aside from the Papadopoulos meeting, Trump Tower meeting, Dutch Intelligence, the US Intelligence community and forensic FBI evidence of the DNC's server, you are correct to think that there is no good reason to assume that Russians hacked the DNC.
 
Mach said:
Mueller asking if Trump knew about hacked Democratic emails before release
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...g-what-trump-knew-about-hacked-emails-n851941



Mueller is asking about Trump directly, seems like we're in a new phase of the investigation?

I'm curious how we know this and why. My impression of the Mueller investigation so far is that we don't hear about it unless it's orchestrated. Does he already have records of all of this and wants to see who is covering up, coordinating, etc? What would next steps be, anyone who lies to charge them and see if they will then plea like those before? Mueller already has most of the Trump campaign transition emails, he's had them for a while. Remember this:
https://www.axios.com/scoop-mueller...551-428f0b7a-b50e-4d9e-8bc4-9869f93c2845.html
Click to expand...

So Mueller wants to know if Donald Trump as a candidate personally conspired with Julian Assange to time the release of stolen E-mails ?

Really ?
 
Cardinal said:
Well, aside from the Papadopoulos meeting, Trump Tower meeting, Dutch Intelligence, the US Intelligence community and forensic FBI evidence of the DNC's server, you are correct to think that there is no good reason to assume that Russians hacked the DNC.
Click to expand...

What FBI Forensic evaluation, never happened. Seriously, if you're going to discuss an issue, know the facts.

The FBI is harder to trust on the DNC hack because it relied on CrowdStrike’s analysis.


“When will the Fake Media ask about the Dems dealings with Russia & why the DNC wouldn't allow the FBI to check their server or investigate?” President Trump tweeted on Sunday at 4:15 a.m. How invigorating to discover that, like me, the president also lies awake at night wondering about the mechanics of major data-breach investigations!

Setting aside the nonsensical first half of the tweet, there’s actually an interesting question worth revisiting buried in the second half. Why wouldn’t the Democratic National Committee allow the FBI to check their servers during the investigation of the DNC breaches during the 2016 election?

The DNC maintains there’s a simple answer to this question: According to the group, the FBI never asked to see their servers. But FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee back in January that the FBI did, in fact, issue “multiple requests at different levels” to the DNC to gain direct access to their computer systems and conduct their own forensic analysis.
Click to expand...
 
Mach said:
Mueller asking if Trump knew about hacked Democratic emails before release
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...g-what-trump-knew-about-hacked-emails-n851941



Mueller is asking about Trump directly, seems like we're in a new phase of the investigation?

I'm curious how we know this and why. My impression of the Mueller investigation so far is that we don't hear about it unless it's orchestrated. Does he already have records of all of this and wants to see who is covering up, coordinating, etc? What would next steps be, anyone who lies to charge them and see if they will then plea like those before? Mueller already has most of the Trump campaign transition emails, he's had them for a while. Remember this:
https://www.axios.com/scoop-mueller...551-428f0b7a-b50e-4d9e-8bc4-9869f93c2845.html
Click to expand...

Yes it has been well orchestrated to increase pressure, to confuse those that have not had an interview, or have and may had lied. Some are no doubt wondering how long was George P cooperating and what he may have recorded. They are now checking those old transition emails with Gates on the addressee/cc/info, and wondering what he is chatting about with his new best friend, Mueller.

Oh yes the transition emails, now that caused a number of WH advisors/staff/campaign staff to **** themselves.

I do see another batch of Felonies coming in the next 8-10 weeks, say mid May. And the WH will be scrambling.
After June hits the mid terms are just beginning.
Mueller has to lay any future charges a good period prior to the mid terms. Otherwise the RW will be saying he is interfering in the election.

With the charges as Mueller laid them out, remember the shock many had that George P had flipped, possibly as far back as late July 2017.
That is what the next charges will be, shockers and possibly some more plea deals.
KT McFarland is nowhere to be seen. Did she flip, is she charged, is she innocent???

George P was arrested at the airport after a trans Atlantic flight, tired, expecting to go home, met by the FBI, bypassed customs and off to jail. Reports in the article have him freaking out, I would as well.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/04/george-papadopoulos-arrest-fbi-277760
"Law enforcement likes to get somebody's attention as much as they can in a lawful way," Breen observed.

Lawyers said the impact was likely a jarring one.

"You get off an airplane expecting to get your bags and get home and instead there are two guys there in trench coats waiting to arrest you. That's pretty shocking," said another former federal prosecutor, Jeff Cramer. "I wouldn't underestimate the shock value of that to flip someone."
Click to expand...

Mueller is no longer using chairs, the numbers have risen so fast he needed to upgrade.
Book early as the best tables /sleeping rooms may not be available.
Note this is an all inclusive, food, rent paid and a variety of games that may be played from the showers, to sleeping rooms to the shop floor.
Upgraded lodging may be made available but Pls coordinate with Mr. Mueller. He does do trades.
View attachment 67229341
 
Renae said:
They weren't stolen by Russia, it was an inside job. Good lord what nonsense.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't matter if they were. According to democrats it's perfectly acceptable to collude with Russia to beat your opposition as long as you a middleman.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Witness statements build a case. The more you have, and the closer to Trump they are, the more credible your case if they all are in agreement.
Click to expand...

And to catch the liars. Each lie a Felony, up to 5 yrs. Does have a tendency to cause cooperation. And Mr. Mueller is know to be a cooperator, just ask Flynn, Gates, or George P.
Why he can make Felonies, most just plain old disappear and those he keeps in his back pocket, just in case they are needed.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Witness statements build a case. The more you have, and the closer to Trump they are, the more credible your case if they all are in agreement.
Click to expand...

True, and a year later they are still hunting for a witness. :lamo
 
trouble13 said:
Wouldn't matter if they were. According to democrats it's perfectly acceptable to collude with Russia to beat your opposition as long as you a middleman.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Just ask the Kennedy Family.
 
chuckiechan said:
Actually you are right it’s “lying to the FBI”.
Click to expand...

Even if Mueller wanted to indict someone for lying to the FBI you'd have to get a grand jury and then an actual jury to agree to prosecute someone for saying red instead of scarlet. That doesn't happen. You need to understand how ridiculous these kinds of claims make you sound.
 
Renae said:
https://nypost.com/2017/08/15/new-report-claims-dnc-hack-was-an-inside-job-not-russia/
Click to expand...
Oh Renae. One group vs everyone else...even some of their own group dissented. Did you never keep reading about it? Forensciator himself backed off he claim, later clarifying:
In addition, a subsequent post by the “Forensicator” actually backs away from the VIPS memo and provides additional caveats, including the following statements:
“The Guccifer 2.0 NGP/VAN Metadata Analysis describes a copy operation that (based on the metadata) occurred in the early evening on July 5, 2016. No claim is made in the report that the data might not have been copied earlier nor whether it might have been copied or leaked.”
“No claim was made in the Forensicator’s analysis that this computer was connected to a DNC server.”
“There may be other over-ambitious extrapolations made by the VIPS in their report.”
Click to expand...


The bottom line: This VIPS memo was hastily written based on a flawed analysis of third-party analyses and then thrown against the wall, waiting to see if it would stick. This memo could have cited the critical questions raised in the third-party analyses of “Guccifer 2.0” while also asking why the three US intelligence agencies have yet to provide any actual hard proof following their January 6, 2017, assessment.

The VIPS memo is now increasingly politicized because the analysis itself was politicized. It deals only with alleged “Guccifer 2.0” hacking and makes the classic apples-versus-oranges mistake. In an ideal world, VIPS would at least retract its assertion of certainty. Absent real facts regarding proof of leaks or hacks (or both), how many hypotheses can one copy onto the head of a digital pin?
Click to expand...

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/


Whatever, you are more than free to believe that it was the scary Russians, I'm not going ot change your mind, yours is partisanally set.
Click to expand...

Not whatever shrug. I've read your stuff months ago, and I read it again, and I read refutations of that single source argument that was debunked in part by their own team, and the conclusions of CIA, NSA, FBI, all vs you. You lose, and you'll look like a CT nut if you persist.
 
Mach said:
Oh Renae. One group vs everyone else...even some of their own group dissented. Did you never keep reading about it? Forensciator himself backed off he claim, later clarifying:
In addition, a subsequent post by the “Forensicator” actually backs away from the VIPS memo and provides additional caveats, including the following statements:





https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/




Not whatever shrug. I've read your stuff months ago, and I read it again, and I read refutations of that single source argument that was debunked in part by their own team, and the conclusions of CIA, NSA, FBI, all vs you. You lose, and you'll look like a CT nut if you persist.
Click to expand...

The FBI Never looked at teh server, the DNC, with a reason to blame an outside group, brought in a private firm... You are welcome to believe what you will, I choose to believe, based on the information in a different way. We both derive our conclusions based on the information we find valid. You want to believe Russia is at fault, I want to know why the FBI wasn't allowed to do a forensic evaluation of the server and data....

You might be right, I might be right, but don't try being condescending, it just makes you look foolish.
 
Renae said:
The FBI Never looked at the server, the DNC, with a reason to blame an outside group, brought in a private firm... You are welcome to believe what you will, I choose to believe, based on the information in a different way. We both derive our conclusions based on the information we find valid.
Click to expand...
Based on cherry-picked, proven false information, even retracted by your own single source.
That you find that incorrect single source "valid", despite me showing you why it is not, and the FBI, CIA, NSA, all the forensic work from AP and the security firms (4-5 of them, all documented), and the dissenters from the same group you quoted (VIPs), and the forensicators clarification that the early claims were essentially misleading...

No, that's not simply a matter of believing two different things both off valid data. You sound like a creationist claiming that evolution is just a theory that is "debatable" ,so why not teach "both sides". Your position was refuted and you have nothing to argue except that you personally feel you're right, and I'm wrong, despite being evidenced you are wrong. At best, you're in denial.

Thankfully, Mueller will operate based on the evidence, not your wishful thinking.
 
Mach said:
Chuckiechan engaged the topic, I think he gets credit for that. You're busting his balls :p
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements
Click to expand...

The key words in the statute are variations of "material," i.e. important, essential, or relevant.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry
Click to expand...

Red versus scarlet is an immaterial distinction in any context I can imagine, and any jury would regard those distinctions as immaterial as well, and so would never be charged. I know the example was to make a point, but it's also insulting to Mueller, who was considered across the board as a man of integrity at least until he started investigating Trump, to assume he's engaging in a witch hunt, effectively, by trying to ensnare people on trivial lies or omissions. There's no evidence of that anywhere.
 
trouble13 said:
Wouldn't matter if they were. According to democrats it's perfectly acceptable to collude with Russia to beat your opposition as long as you a middleman.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, because someone engaging in wrongdoing is perfectly equivalent to someone who discovers and reports the wrongdoing. :roll:
 
chuckiechan said:
Typical thread hijack by the left to change the discussion into “it depends on what “it” means”.
Click to expand...

The OP is about whether or not Trump, and I'm sure any others, knew about the wikileaks email releases prior to the public knowing. That's a material fact, relevant to the investigation. Lying about that is likely prosecutable. To divert from that discussion, you essentially accused Mueller of engaging in a witch hunt by getting people on the record lying about trivial things, which isn't a felony and isn't prosecutable. There is no evidence anywhere that's Mueller's intent or practice.

The crimes charged so far by Mueller's team appear to be material lies. PapaD, for example, lied about (among other things) when he met Russian intelligence operatives, which is a material fact. Before he was appointed is a LOT different than afterward - before he was a nobody, afterward a member of Trump's campaign team, and inner circle.
 
Renae said:
They weren't stolen by Russia, it was an inside job. Good lord what nonsense.
Click to expand...

Wait.. why would it matter if it was an inside job? It's still theft. It would be like trying to defend Nixon's actions in Watergate because the burglars were American.
 
Mithros said:
Wait.. why would it matter if it was an inside job? It's still theft. It would be like trying to defend Nixon's actions in Watergate because the burglars were American.
Click to expand...

A DNC Staffer sent it to Wikileaks, not russians.

Big diff.
 
apdst said:
When did that happen?
Click to expand...




"I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting."

The Trump Tower meeting was two days later on June 9th.
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:


"I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting."
Click to expand...


He didn't admit to anything. Not even kinda-sorta.
 
Renae said:
A DNC Staffer sent it to Wikileaks, not russians.

Big diff.
Click to expand...

Got a name, as I am sure Mueller is interested. Why he may offer a bounty, as he fills up on Trump campaign members scalps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom