It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Russia Thingy

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

perhaps we dont care because all of that is nothing but critiques on character, and character doesnt #ing matter, the policies he does or doesnt enact is all that matters. identity politics is what gets your head believing character traits matter enough to impeach someone, they dont, he doesnt hurt the country by having opinions you dislike.... show how his policy decisions hurt the country if you want people to listen to you about how hes a bad president, cause any threads or articles about his opinions and his character will continue to be ignored just as they always where for obama bush clinton and bush again, americans have always ignored those critiques by and large, it is policy that matters,
how do people not get that?


I'm not sure that's good enough, I see what you are getting at though. However from the very start Trump has been about truth and lies, and all he does is lie ad nauseum, and so often it's to protect his own skin and damn the rest, while at the same time demanding loyalty from his own people. Even now there's talk of Trump asking Kelly to get Kushner and Ivanka out of the White House...AKA the boot, that's bad any way you swing it....he'll soon be there on his tod.




posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Xtrozero


So ... perjury is something that reveals the least, protects the most.


I don't understand what this means?

Are you saying something like "lying reveals little" and protects (who - the person who lies) the most?????

Seriously I have not idea what concept(s) you are trying to communicate.


No.

In order to prove that someone made a false statement, you simply have to prove that one statement they made at one time contradicted a statement they made at another time. If they made them under oath, it is perjury.

You don't have to go any further, reveal anything else, to make your case.

To prove other crimes, you often need to start bringing in witnesses, taking testimony, subpoenaing various records ... all kinds of embarrassing details and truths can come out about people who would rather not have those details and truths dug out in that kind of process, and DC is so connected that a one person scandal can easily grow to pull down several people.
edit on 3-3-2018 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy


Well it's about treason in the main, as the author says,
"it is still unclear whether the president of the United States is an agent of a foreign power"
If he was an agent of a foreign power...say a sovereign Russia, then he would be treasonous.

I don't think it is as simple as that, I think was as much going on at home as there was aid from Russia, there could be a large number of players, as well as a large number of the unwitting. I think the author conceives of that too, just doesn't spit it out.

If there was, it would certainly still be against the Constitution though.


Well - is it about Treason really and that is a substantive part of the debate - and I do hope you watch it.

Treason is clearly defined - and has to do with "aide and comfort' certainly but also about 'formally declared' enemies. Glen Greenwald is quite eloquent on the subject.

There are legal definitions of Treason and then the common usage of the word which is quite different.

Again, this point is debated right at the top of the video and well worth the time.



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko



No.

In order to prove that someone made a false statement, you simply have to prove that one statement they made at one time contradicted a statement they made at another time. If they made them under oath, it is perjury.




In order to commit perjury, the witness would have to knowingly, intentionally testify falsely on a material matter. A person accused of perjury can say he mis-recalled, mis-remembered, forgot, misunderstood, etc., all of which are not lies or perjury. In other words, it is easy to call "perjury" hard to prove in court to a jury by a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.


www.avvo.com...

Just a quick look on the internet.

I'd still like an explanation for your original statement for my own understanding but it is not truly relevant to the thread.

Thanks for adding to my education.



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: crtrvt

You must have missed the enormous narrative shift when Trump decided to run as a candidate. Literally everyone who didn't uttered a negative thing about him before turned on him the second he announced it. Yeah i don't know about you but i find that suspicious as hell. Btw Trump is very consistent in his views something that people conveniently overlook but hey.



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 06:34 PM
link   
This month's The Atlantic - Paul Manafort-american-hustler is a pretty good place to start for background reading

We find that Manafort, a serious mover and shaker in political circles since the '80's
went on to ply his trade for some pretty nasty people to help them win elections...

Link

After nigh on 20 years in the US political wilderness,
and 16 million in debt to a russian oliagarch/mafia type Oleg Derispaska
Manafort thought he could make things right (money wise) by helping Team Trump




With the arrival of Donald Trump, Manafort smelled an opportunity to regain his losses, and to return to relevance. It was, in some ways, perfect: The campaign was a shambolic masterpiece of improvisation that required an infusion of technical knowledge and establishment credibility.


The Manafort narrative is thread worthy in it's own right
edit on 3-3-2018 by Cassi3l because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Understanding the Mueller investigation is quite simple.

The losers of the last election weaponized federal leo organizations to punish the winner.

Which has destroyed many lives over the course of the year.

What ever you do. Don't run a fair campaign and win against Never Trump.

They will make you pay for it, and don't care who gets ran over by their bat snip whacko crazy train.


What an absolute crock. Nobody cares that the Republican won, ok?? That was going to be 50-50 no matter what. We're not having a Russian investigation because a "Republican won," we're having one because the president is most likely a Russian plant. ALL self-respecting nations attempt to DO SOMETHING when their gov's apparatus is controlled by another country or private party.

"Which has destroyed so many lives in the course of a year."

Trump does seem to have that effect on people, and if you'll notice, he's not the least bit loyal to those people. Once Trump has no use for you, you're gone, over the edge - see Jeffy Sessions. Sessions was the FIRST federal politician to support Trump, campaigned for Trump, got up on the stand and lied for Trump, but because Sessions followed the DOJ guidelines about conflicts, and because Sessions won't quit so Trump can put a "loyal" (we know what that means) person in the position, Sessions now must be humiliated on TWITTER! As if the president can't pick up the damn phone and talk if he really wants to send a message, you know, like an adult?

The people who are having lives destroyed are those who committed crimes to get where they are - I don't see Priebus charged, not Spicer, plenty of "Trump alum" seem to have come and gone with only their eyes opened, no wrap sheet. Oh, and just bc Mueller accepted "perjury" as the plea agreement does not mean that he couldn't prove MUCH more. Ask Flynn, who could easily have been charged with acting as a foreign agent w/o registering, or violations of a ton of statutes by going into the Russian embassy looking for a "backchannel" without having notified the American government.

Manafort will be dearly wishing he was offered a plea for perjury. Manafort's issue is that his crimes involve oligarchs that can reach inside U.S. prisons to end his life, therefore possible "plea deals" don't have the upside for Manafort that they might for others.

Meanwhile, we are just now learning the depths of Kushner's willingness to sell-out the U.S. to get out from under the $1.2 billion he owes next year. I suppose that lying on the application form, ommissions of meetings, etc. will be blamed on some "Deepstate" nefarious plot?

Kushner symbolizes everything this administration stands for, in deep financial trouble, looking to use anything within arms-reach to enrich himself,

Now, tell me all about my whacko butthurt leftist crazy snip delusional self. blow off all the facts in defense of someone who won't defend you, or me, if it will cost him money.



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cassi3l
This month's The Atlantic - Paul Manafort-american-hustler is a pretty good place to start for background reading

We find that Manafort, a serious mover and shaker in political circles since the '80's
went on to ply his trade for some pretty nasty people to help them win elections...

Link

After nigh on 20 years in the US political wilderness,
and 16 million in debt to a russian oliagarch/mafia type Oleg Derispaska
Manafort thought he could make things right (money wise) by helping Team Trump




With the arrival of Donald Trump, Manafort smelled an opportunity to regain his losses, and to return to relevance. It was, in some ways, perfect: The campaign was a shambolic masterpiece of improvisation that required an infusion of technical knowledge and establishment credibility.


The Manafort narrative is thread worthy in it's own right


That is an excellent article, I appreciate you linking. I had forgotten to read it before and will dive in.



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

Well - is it about Treason really and that is a substantive part of the debate - and I do hope you watch it.



Yes, I'm fairly familiar with Greenwald's writings.
The video doesn't work for me It's likely this html5...thingy, but I have a copy off Youtube,




posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 06:59 PM
link   
In the same vein - accidental blow back


..massive cherry pick ...

The original aim was to embarrass and damage Hillary Clinton, to sow dissension, and to show that American democracy is just as corrupt as Russia’s, if not worse.

“No one believed in Trump, not even a little bit,” Soldatov says. “It was a series of tactical operations. At each moment, the people who were doing this were filled with excitement over how well it was going, and that success pushed them to go even further.”


“A lot of what they’ve done was very opportunistic,” says Dmitri Alperovitch, the Russian-born co-founder of the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which first discovered the Russian interference after the company was hired to investigate the hack of the Democratic National Committee servers in May 2016.

“They cast a wide net without knowing in advance what the benefit might be.” The Russian hackers were very skilled, Alperovitch says, but “we shouldn’t try to make them out to be eight feet tall” and able to “elect whomever they want. They tried in Ukraine, and it didn’t work.” Nor did it work in the French elections of 2017.


What Putin really wants
edit on 3-3-2018 by Cassi3l because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 07:02 PM
link   
The Democratic party did not take losing the last election very well. The leaking of the DNC emails in the time leading up to the election exposed a lot of the insidious nature and going ons within the democratic party leadership. I don't know how many votes this information did change, it gave me no confidence in Hillary and her crew.

In a attempt to save face and maybe knock the Republicans out, a narrative of Russian hacking, collusion and interference was alleged. So in comes Muller with his investigation.

There is a lot more evidence that democratic staffer called Seth Rich was the one responsible in leaking these emails and changed the public perception of the Democratic party. His motivation for the leak is that he too lost confidence with the party. He was shot soon after the email release with many questions remaining unanswered.

Rather than focusing on the crimes and conflicts exposed in the emails, fear of the Russians became the mantra to stay on the offensive with the battle of perceptions. As for how this special investigation has morphed, changed and looking for something, I don't know what going on.



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Jimmy Dore does a video on this very debate. As glen greenwald points out perfectly there is no way whatever trump did or didn't do with Russia, does treason by definition fit at all. Risen falsely states that "if Donald trump worked with a foreign government that is along time adversary of the united states to manipulate and then win an american election, that is almost a textbook definition of treason." Greenwald says that's not just wrong, it's dangerous. The democrats want trump so bad that they are willing to change the definition of words and law. the true definition of treason and yes it's clearly defined by the constitution for reasons just like this, treason against the United States shall consist ONLY in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies giving them aid and comfort. Risen acts as if this is somehow vague and open to interpretation.How so? Enemies in this context must be countries that congress has formally declared war or otherwise authorized the use of force. the whole article falls on it's face after that last part. None of what has or hasn't happened with Russia and trump comes close. It shouldn't even be a discussion.

i think Greenwald nailed it. Risen even has his name mentioned as a traitor when he published articles which revealed state secrets when we were actually at war with Al Queda. It wasn't treason then, and for sure isn't treason now. Greenwald even admits it doesn't fit the definition, but then goes on as if that doesn't matter. That's where we are folks. If Trump hasn't committed a crime by definition, they somehow wanna make it fit. i feel sure that if any other elections were investigated to this degree, We would find similar things have been done by foreign countries, possibly to even a larger degree. The DNC had so much invested in Clinton that her loss of an election, a candidate they were sure would win, to get this looked at to this degree, and turn over every nook and cranny in order to explain it. The problem with that is Russia didn't steal an election, and I think it's time the Dems take a look in the mirror and see the problem is staring back at them.



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: FyreByrd

Well - is it about Treason really and that is a substantive part of the debate - and I do hope you watch it.



Yes, I'm fairly familiar with Greenwald's writings.
The video doesn't work for me It's likely this html5...thingy, but I have a copy off Youtube,



Yes that is the video.



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: keenmachine
a reply to: FyreByrd

Jimmy Dore does a video on this very debate. As glen greenwald points out perfectly there is no way whatever trump did or didn't do with Russia, does treason by definition fit at all. Risen falsely states that "if Donald trump worked with a foreign government that is along time adversary of the united states to manipulate and then win an american election, that is almost a textbook definition of treason." Greenwald says that's not just wrong, it's dangerous. .


Well Risen is wrong in saying that, on the other hand, Greenwald needs to know everything concerning Trumps activities, to say what he said. Treason is considered an act, probably in this case, aiding, and the intention thereof.
only The judges decide on the evidence.



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

In today's political world, it is enough.

Some of the perjury charges people get caught up on are technicalities not even related to the case being investigated.



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: keenmachine
a reply to: FyreByrd

Jimmy Dore does a video on this very debate. As glen greenwald points out perfectly there is no way whatever trump did or didn't do with Russia, does treason by definition fit at all. Risen falsely states that "if Donald trump worked with a foreign government that is along time adversary of the united states to manipulate and then win an american election, that is almost a textbook definition of treason." Greenwald says that's not just wrong, it's dangerous. .


Well Risen is wrong in saying that, on the other hand, Greenwald needs to know everything concerning Trumps activities, to say what he said. Treason is considered an act, probably in this case, aiding, and the intention thereof.
only The judges decide on the evidence.


If you read my post or the actual definition of treason nothing trump or Russia did will make it treason. we are not at war with Russia. he may be guilty of something else if there is alot more than we have been told, but treason doesn't fit anywhere you put the goal posts!



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   
There's more


On the evening of April 11, 2016, two weeks after Donald Trump hired the political consultant Paul Manafort to lead his campaign’s efforts to wrangle Republican delegates, Manafort emailed his old lieutenant Konstantin Kilimnik, who had worked for him for a decade in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev.

“I assume you have shown our friends my media coverage, right?” Manafort wrote. “Absolutely,” Kilimnik responded a few hours later from Kiev. “Every article.”

“How do we use to get whole,” Manafort asks.

“Has OVD operation seen?”

According to a source close to Manafort, the initials “OVD” refer to Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska, a Russian oligarch and one of Russia’s richest men.

The source also confirmed that one of the individuals repeatedly mentioned in the email exchange as an intermediary to Deripaska is an aide to the oligarch.


Seems like, for his own health and security,
Manafort is best protected by house arrest than in prison
He's a dead man on the street...



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 08:45 PM
link   
It is naive to believe that All Presidents and politicians do not have foreign investments, and donations from "foreign interests" or that All presidents haven't been involved in corruption, or "collusion"

This Russia hysteria is just another way for the left to exploit people and scare them into consolidating power for more political gains, they have managed to (which is/was their plan) dissolve any thought of a Third/Alternate party by the Russia scare and media propaganda attacks that Jill Stein is a Russian plant and cost Hillary the election, or the "Radical Liberal Bernie supporters" are dividing the Democrats and need to be silenced.

everyone is a Russian Bot or a plant, from within their own party to BLM, to anarchists etc

this is similar to everyone is bought by Soro's on the Right.

You want an investigation, investigate everyone, all parties, politicians, and people in power and they would all be destroyed



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: whyamIhere
It sure looks like he is helping millions of Americans.

But, feel free to dabble in this ridiculous concept.

The level of butt hurt is astounding.




I would dispute "He's helping millions...." but it is not the subject. Thanks for stopping by.


The "Russia Thingy" is made up because some couldn't handle losing.

For over a year that lie is all there was to hang onto.

So, stop perpetrating this lie. There is no "Russia Thingy".

Only crybabies that for a year spout this lie...



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: keenmachine

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: keenmachine
a reply to: FyreByrd

Jimmy Dore does a video on this very debate. As glen greenwald points out perfectly there is no way whatever trump did or didn't do with Russia, does treason by definition fit at all. Risen falsely states that "if Donald trump worked with a foreign government that is along time adversary of the united states to manipulate and then win an american election, that is almost a textbook definition of treason." Greenwald says that's not just wrong, it's dangerous. .


Well Risen is wrong in saying that, on the other hand, Greenwald needs to know everything concerning Trumps activities, to say what he said. Treason is considered an act, probably in this case, aiding, and the intention thereof.
only The judges decide on the evidence.


If you read my post or the actual definition of treason nothing trump or Russia did will make it treason. we are not at war with Russia. he may be guilty of something else if there is alot more than we have been told, but treason doesn't fit anywhere you put the goal posts!


I didn't make any goal posts, I'm simply saying that the judges decide on the parameters they have, the act and the intent, that of aid and comfort, which is the most likely scenario, and seems to be an offence of it's own in conventional wisdom.

The article III though says this,
'Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court'

The seemingly an alternative... 'in adhering to their enemies' is very vague.. an enemy is a hostile, it doesn't mean war per se, only especially so in war.

Anyway, courts won't want to go down that road if there is no war on. A charge of spying/divulging of information is there to do much the same job.

Mueller so far has has made the complaint of conspiracy to defraud the US in his 13 charges against the Russians, that seems to be a rare enough charge, the charges all have the caveat included of other un-named co-conspiritors, and my guess is that he is in for the long haul, if complex, and looking for a lot more items, that may include more serious offences, and if he has anything more, even a whiff, it would be wrong to stop him.




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join